Muhammad Ibrahim v Ministry of Justice

A prison governor has a broad discretion to organise prison accommodation and to address the particular needs of prisoners or groups of prisoners, subject to compliance with the law. The existence of a specialist wing for veterans does not itself breach the Equality Act 2010. Different living conditions do not, without more, breach rule 8 of the Prison Rules 1999, particularly where placement on the wing does not itself confer enhanced privilege status. Article 14 of the Convention does not create a freestanding right and must be linked to another Convention right. A claim based on Article 14 which discloses no freestanding right may be struck out under CPR 3.4. An alternative Equality Act claim may also be summarily dismissed where it has no realistic prospect of success.

The claimant, a serving prisoner at HMP Littlehey, challenged the establishment and operation of a Veterans in Custody wing. He alleged that the wing gave veterans more favourable conditions based on their previous employment, contrary to rule 8 of the Prison Rules 1999, Article 14 of the Convention and the Equality Act 2010.

After a judgment in default was set aside by DJ Rouine on 6 September 2024, the defendant applied to strike out the claim under CPR Part 3.4 or, alternatively, for summary judgment under CPR 24.3. The central issues were whether the Article 14 claim was legally sustainable and whether any pleaded or proposed Equality Act claim had a realistic prospect of success.

1. The claim was struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a), with judgment for the defendant. Alternatively, it was dismissed under CPR 24(3) because it had no realistic prospect of success at trial.
2. The Article 14 claim was bound to fail. Article 14, as incorporated through the Human Rights Act 1998, does not establish a freestanding right. It governs the enjoyment of other Convention rights without improper discrimination. The claimant accepted that the claim could not succeed on that basis.
3. Being a veteran is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, and not being a veteran is not a protected characteristic either. The prison governor nevertheless has power to recognise and address the special needs of a prisoner or class of prisoners, and enjoys broad discretion in doing so.
4. The establishment of a Veterans in Custody wing did not itself breach the Equality Act 2010. The uncontroverted evidence was that placement on the wing did not confer enhanced privilege status. The different living conditions were comparable to differences elsewhere in the prison estate and were intended to address the particular needs of veterans.
5. The regime did not breach rule 8 of the Prison Rules 1999. Rule 8(3) requires privileges to be linked to specified standards of behaviour and performance, but different conditions on different prison landings do not themselves constitute a privilege regime governed by that requirement.

The judgment describes an earlier judgment in default and its subsequent setting aside by DJ Rouine’s order dated 6 September 2024. The present decision was at first instance.