Robinson, R. v

Where criminal proceedings for escape or absconding are already extant, an independent adjudicator must not continue a prison disciplinary adjudication for the same offence. Under the Prisoner and Discipline Proceedings Rules, continuation would constitute double jeopardy.

An adjudication conducted in breach of that requirement is void ab initio, rather than merely voidable, because it is outside or in excess of jurisdiction. The Administrative Court may quash the void adjudication and its additional custodial penalty, leaving the criminal conviction and sentence in place.

The applicant absconded from prison while serving a sentence. He was arrested and charged with escape from lawful custody before an independent adjudicator heard a prison disciplinary charge arising from the same conduct.

Unaware that criminal proceedings were extant, the adjudicator accepted a guilty plea and imposed 14 additional days' imprisonment. The applicant later pleaded guilty in the Crown Court and received three months' consecutive imprisonment; the sentencing judge was not told of the prison adjudication.

On a renewed, out-of-time application, it was common ground that the adjudication and conviction could not both stand. The issue was whether the adjudication was void or merely voidable, and consequently which decision should be quashed.

1. Permission was granted and judicial review allowed. The court reconvened as the Administrative Court, abridged time and dispensed with procedural formalities. It quashed the independent adjudicator's decision of 1 May 2015 and the additional 14-day sentence.

2. Criminal proceedings had begun when the applicant was arrested and charged on 15 April 2015. Prisoner and Discipline Proceedings Rules, rule 2.19, required the adjudicator to establish whether the prisoner was being, or had been, prosecuted for the same escape or absconding offence. If so, the adjudication could not continue because it would amount to double jeopardy.

3. The adjudication was therefore void ab initio, not merely voidable. Applying the distinction between errors within jurisdiction and decisions outside or in excess of jurisdiction, the court held that the adjudicator had acted without jurisdiction and through a gross and obvious procedural irregularity. The breach was not the adjudicator's fault, since he had not been told of the criminal proceedings.

4. There were also sound policy reasons for this result. A prison adjudication must not prevent or disable the Crown Court from exercising its criminal jurisdiction. The Crown Court conviction and three-month sentence accordingly remained effective.

5. The court further stated, though it was unnecessary formally to decide the point, that a prison adjudication involving loss of liberty constitutes criminal proceedings before a competent body. Double jeopardy therefore applies, and R v Hogan no longer represents the law on that issue.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2017] EWCA Crim 936 , the court granted permission to proceed out of time, reconvened as the Administrative Court, and quashed the prison adjudication and its 14-day penalty.
• Worcester Crown Court: On 1 June 2015, the applicant pleaded guilty to escape from lawful custody and received three months' imprisonment consecutive to his existing sentence.
• Independent adjudicator: On 1 May 2015, the adjudicator accepted a guilty plea to the prison disciplinary charge and imposed 14 additional days' imprisonment. That decision was quashed.