Wood, R (on the application of) v Governor of HMP Wandsworth

Article 6 requires prisoners to have a reasonable opportunity to present their cases without substantial disadvantage, but it does not ordinarily require access to a word processor, printer or typing facilities. Legible handwriting may suffice where the prisoner can prepare and present the necessary material by hand. Legal research materials may be provided electronically where they can be read on an approved device. A general challenge to prison IT policy requires evidence of individual unlawfulness or an inherent legal flaw; resource constraints and an ongoing policy review are relevant. The claim was dismissed because the claimant had not shown that the available facilities impeded his access to justice.

The claimant, a serving prisoner at HMP Wandsworth, sought judicial review concerning the provision and maintenance of Access to Justice IT equipment. He argued that the absence of a laptop capable of writing and printing documents impeded his ability to prepare representations concerning his convictions and a possible application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

During the proceedings he was offered a read-only Access to Justice laptop. The central issues were whether Article 6 required more extensive IT facilities in his circumstances and whether the court should intervene in the defendant’s evolving national policy.

1. Article 6 access to justice. The claimant had to show that the denial of particular IT facilities deprived him of a reasonable opportunity to present his case or placed him at a substantial disadvantage. A general preference for typing did not establish such an impediment.
2. The proposed application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission was not shown to be so complex or document-heavy that it could not be prepared by hand. The claimant was articulate, intelligent and capable of producing a structured handwritten document. Article 6 therefore did not require that he be given a laptop with writing or printing facilities.
3. The reading aspect of legal work could be accommodated through the approved laptop, using legal and other material transferred onto a CD-ROM, provided the relevant prison equipment was working and staff were co-operative. The court accepted that the combination of electronic reading and handwritten composition afforded adequate access to justice.
4. The broader challenge to the national policy was refused. There was no evidence that the claimant had been treated unlawfully, that the policy contained an inherent legal defect, or that the policy review had infringed his Article 6 rights. The court also recognised that the adequacy of the policy involved resources, IT skills and staffing, matters primarily outside the court’s institutional expertise.
5. The judicial review claim was dismissed. No order for costs was made, having regard to delay by the defendant and the failure to serve a costs schedule. Permission to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success and there was no other compelling reason for it to be heard. Time for applying to the Court of Appeal was extended from 21 to 35 days.

Permission to bring the judicial review was granted on the papers by Andrews J on 17 August 2015, with an expedited hearing. The claim was then determined at first instance by the Administrative Court.