Hall, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Justice

The duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 requires the court to identify the relevant provision, criterion or practice, determine whether it places disabled persons at a substantial disadvantage, and assess whether reasonable steps were taken to avoid that disadvantage. The assessment is anticipatory but remains intensely practical and fact-sensitive. It must take account of the individual’s circumstances, the medical evidence available to the public authority, the nature of the proposed adjustment, and the practical steps already taken. A prison authority may discharge the duty through interim arrangements, referrals, staff instruction and a proposed transfer to a developing specialist facility. The duty does not require every prison to provide an autism-specific unit, nor does it require an adjustment unsupported by evidence linking the alleged disadvantage to the disability.

The claimant, an indeterminate sentence prisoner with evidence suggesting autism or Asperger’s syndrome and additional personality-disorder needs, sought judicial review of the Secretary of State’s management of him at HMP Manchester. Permission was granted on grounds alleging failure to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 and failure to comply with prison policy.

The claimant alleged that the defendant should have provided a specialist autism establishment, autism-trained staff and continued segregation rather than requiring relocation to a normal prison wing. The defendant relied on the claimant’s complex and disputed diagnosis, his history of aggression, attempted transfers and referrals, interim clinical support, and proposed transfer to HMP Wakefield. The central issue was whether the defendant had taken such steps as were reasonable in all the circumstances to avoid the substantial disadvantage.

1. Claim dismissed. The defendant discharged the burden of showing that it had taken such steps as were reasonable in all the circumstances to avoid the disadvantage and, where relevant, to provide auxiliary aids.
2. The court adopted the three-stage approach identified in R (on the application of VC) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 57: identify the provision, criterion or practice, or physical feature; determine whether it places disabled persons at a substantial disadvantage; and assess whether reasonable steps were taken to avoid that disadvantage. The claimant needed to give only some indication of the adjustments alleged, but the burden then rested on the Secretary of State.
3. The court proceeded on the basis that housing autistic prisoners in prisons without access to autism-specific services was a provision, criterion or practice placing autistic prisoners generally at a substantial disadvantage. The material question was whether the duty had been discharged in relation to this claimant. The anticipatory nature of the duty, recognised in Finnigan v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police [2013] EWCA Civ 1191, did not make the defendant liable to provide every proposed service.
4. The assessment had to reflect the medical information available to the defendant, including evidence of autism together with additional needs and aggressive behaviour. The court did not need to decide which diagnosis had primacy or resolve conflicting expert evidence. The reasonableness inquiry was practical and contextual, consistent with Paulley v FirstGroup plc [2017] UKSC 4. The limits of what could reasonably be required in a prison context were also illustrated by R (on the application of H) v Secretary of State for Justice [2015] EWHC 4093 (Admin).
5. The defendant had investigated and attempted transfers to suitable establishments, including HMP Dovegate, the Beacon Project and HMP Norwich. It had also provided clinical and staff support at HMP Manchester. The proposed transfer to HMP Wakefield, pending the opening of its specialist unit, together with autism awareness training and arrangements for appropriately informed staff, was a reasonable step in the circumstances.
6. The requirement that the claimant move from segregation to a normal location did not breach the duty. Although the defendant accepted that the claimant would suffer disadvantage on the main wing, the claimant had not demonstrated a link between the perceived threats requiring continued segregation and his disability. The defendant had investigated the alleged risks and had agreed to keep him in segregation pending the litigation.
7. The approach in R (on the application of MDA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 2132 (Admin) did not require the claim to be determined on an unresolved medical dispute. The present court had sufficient evidence to assess the reasonableness of the defendant’s decisions without resolving the medical disagreement.

First instance judicial review in the Administrative Court. The judgment records no prior appellate decision in the same proceedings.