Taktouk, R (on the application of) v His Majesty's Prison and Probation Service

Interim relief will not be granted in a judicial review claim unless the claimant shows a sufficiently arguable public-law challenge and the balance of convenience favours relief. The court will be cautious where the interim order would effectively determine the substantive claim.

Under a policy governing overseas travel while on licence, the applicant must make the case by reference to the stated criteria. Exceptional circumstances remain relevant, including whether the proposed benefits can be deferred until the licence ends. The decision-maker is not required to devise alternative travel periods for an applicant, although a shorter or more focused request may properly produce a different result. Recent release after a lengthy custodial sentence may reasonably support concern about a lengthy absence abroad.

The claimant, recently released after serving a seven-year custodial sentence, was subject to licence conditions requiring permission before travelling abroad. He sought permission to travel to Lebanon for a memorial Mass and to visit his father’s grave, attend a family wedding and see an elderly aunt.

After judicial review proceedings were commenced alleging delay, the defendant refused the request on 4 July 2025. A Deputy High Court Judge refused interim relief on 21 July and directed amendments enabling the claimant to challenge the substantive decision. The claimant applied urgently for permission to travel before the substantive judicial review and also indicated an intended article 3 challenge. The issue was whether interim relief was justified on the material then available.

1. Application refused. The claimant had not shown a sufficiently arguable public-law challenge to the refusal of permission to travel, and the balance of convenience did not favour an injunction.
2. The court had to consider whether there was a good arguable case and, if so, whether the balance of convenience favoured relief. The order sought would, in practical terms, have granted the claimant the substantive relief sought in the judicial review. That made caution appropriate. The court could not determine permission for the substantive claim at this interim stage.
3. The overseas-travel policy required the individual to apply by reference to its criteria and provide supporting evidence. The guidance continued to require exceptional circumstances. The later criteria, particularly whether the benefits of travel could be deferred until after the licence period, gave content to that requirement.
4. The burden lay on the claimant to present a case satisfying the criteria. The defendant was entitled to determine the application made to it and was not required to propose alternative periods of travel. Its decision left open further discussion, and a shorter request focused on visiting living relatives and the father’s grave might receive a different response.
5. The defendant was entitled to take account of the proposed five-week absence, the claimant’s recent release and his lengthy custodial sentence. The postponement of the memorial service weakened the asserted urgency, and remote participation or communication was a relevant alternative, despite the preference generally given to face-to-face religious and family contact.

The claimant’s good faith and sincere emotional and religious reasons were accepted, but they did not establish an arguable legal error or justify urgent interim relief.

• High Court (Administrative Court): An earlier Deputy High Court Judge refused interim relief on 21 July 2025 and directed amendments to the judicial review grounds. On 23 July 2025, the present court refused the renewed urgent application for interim relief.