Kevan Thakrar, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice

For Article 3, beyond reasonable doubt applies to the facts, not to the legal assessment whether treatment reaches the minimum level of severity. Removal from association is not inherently inhuman or degrading. Conditions, stringency, duration, objective and effects must be assessed in the circumstances. No fixed period automatically breaches Article 3.

For Article 8, prolonged segregation requires careful and continuing justification, but may remain proportionate where safety risks cannot be properly assessed because a prisoner refuses required assessment despite reasonable attempts to secure engagement. Rule 46 monthly review covers both CSC placement and further removal from association. Rule 46 protections were not inferior to Rule 45 for Article 14 purposes. Appeal dismissed.

The appellant, a life prisoner held within the close supervision centre regime and for much of the relevant period in a designated cell, sought judicial review of his continuing removal from association. He relied on Rules 45 and 46, common-law procedural fairness, and Articles 3, 8 and 14. McGowan J dismissed the claim but granted declaratory relief on a conceded Article 8 breach arising from decisions taken by an improperly constituted committee.

The appeal challenged the findings on monthly reviews, reasons, Article 3 proof and procedural safeguards, Article 8 proportionality, and the comparison between Rules 45 and 46. The central questions were whether the regime crossed the Article 3 threshold, whether continued segregation was proportionate, and whether Rule 46 protections discriminated against CSC prisoners.

1. Disposition. The appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal nevertheless considered the substantive Article 8 claim for itself, notwithstanding the respondent’s concession of a narrow breach arising from decisions taken by an improperly constituted committee.
2. Monthly review and reasons. Under Rule 46(1) of the Prison Rules 1999, monthly review covers both a prisoner’s placement within the CSC estate and any further removal from association within the CSC. Separate decision-making processes are unnecessary. The records showed that the CSCMC had considered both matters. The common-law duty to give reasons, stated in R (Bourgass) v SSJ [2015] UKSC 54; [2016] AC 384, applies equally under Rules 45 and 46. The appellant received genuine and meaningful information through letters, reports, care plans and review material. He could not have been in doubt that non-engagement prevented risk assessment and progression.
3. Article 3. The judge’s formulation of proof beyond reasonable doubt was too compressed. That standard applies to the factual question of what occurred, not to the legal question whether the facts reach the Article 3 threshold. The court applied the fact-sensitive minimum-severity assessment described in R (AB) v Secretary of State for Justice [2021] UKSC 28; [2022] AC 487, and the related Strasbourg authorities. Removal from association is not inherently inhuman or degrading, and no fixed period or degree of stringency is determinative. The appellant retained social and legal visits, telephone access and substantial daily social contact. His regime did not approach the minimum level of severity. The Article 3 procedural challenge also failed because the substantive complaints about review and reasons failed.
4. Article 8. Prolonged segregation requires increasingly careful and vigilant justification, but duration alone does not establish disproportionality. The appellant presented a risk of serious violence. The evidence showed repeated attempts by the MDT and psychologists to secure engagement, while an up-to-date risk assessment could not safely be completed without the appellant’s participation. The segregation was maintained for safety and risk management, not to punish or break his resistance. On those facts it was proportionate.
5. Article 14. A finding of discrimination does not require a prior breach of another Convention right. Even assuming that prisoners segregated under Rules 45 and 46 were in sufficiently similar positions, the protections under Rule 46 were not inferior. Rule 46 required an initial decision by or on behalf of the Secretary of State, more frequent monthly renewal, and a detailed assessment process. There was therefore no discrimination.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): [2026] EWCA Civ 503 — appeal dismissed.
2. High Court (King’s Bench Division), Administrative Court: McGowan J dismissed the judicial review claim. No citation for that decision is stated in the judgment. Declaratory relief was granted on a conceded Article 8 breach concerning the composition of the decision-making committee.