Rimmer, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice & Anor

Licence conditions imposed on release from prison may interfere with Convention rights, but remain lawful where authorised by statute, directed to legitimate crime-prevention aims and proportionate to the offender’s evidenced risks. Published policy governing additional conditions must be followed unless there is a good reason to depart from it, expressed in the reasons for the decision. Conditions may protect people who have not previously been victims but are vulnerable to the offender’s particular risks. Carefully controlled mechanisms for permission or relaxation are relevant to proportionality and do not necessarily convert restrictions into blanket bans. Judicial review determines legality and proportionality; it is not the appropriate forum for deciding the detailed welfare merits of family contact, which fall principally within the Family Court’s function.

The claimant challenged conditions attached to his extended licence following convictions for serious offences involving indecent images of children. The conditions restricted his use of computers, electronic devices, mobile phones and cameras, prohibited residence at or entry to the family home, and restricted contact with children, including his grandchildren.

He alleged that the defendant had failed to follow its published policy and that the conditions disproportionately interfered with his rights under Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR. The central issues were whether the conditions were authorised, consistent with policy, and proportionate in light of the claimant’s offending history and the available mechanisms for controlled exceptions.

1. The claim was dismissed. The statutory framework authorised the imposition of additional licence conditions. The conditions pursued legitimate aims under Article 8, including crime prevention, public safety and protection of the rights of others.
2. Following Lumba v SSHD (2011) UKSC 12, a decision-maker must follow published policy unless there is a good reason to depart from it and that reason is expressed. The defendant had followed PSI 12/2015.
3. The policy permitted no-contact and exclusion conditions for persons who had not been previous victims but were at risk of becoming victims or vulnerable to the offender’s particular risks. The restrictions concerning the claimant’s grandchildren and family home were therefore within the policy.
4. The relevant question was proportionality. The claimant’s extensive convictions, the quantity and seriousness of the images involved, and the further offending shortly after release justified careful management of his access to computers, electronic devices, cameras and children. The fact that cameras had not personally been used in the offending did not make camera restrictions irrational or disproportionate where escalation of risk was contemplated by the policy.
5. The conditions were not blanket bans because they permitted controlled exceptions. The defendant was required to assess each request on the evidence and by reference to risk. The amendment allowing a Family Court order to authorise contact was an important safeguard. The Family Court, rather than judicial review, was best placed to assess the children’s welfare and whether contact could safely occur.
6. The interference with Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol was proportionate in the particular circumstances. The claimant’s licence conditions were therefore lawful.

Not stated in the judgment.