Syeda Fatinah Hossain, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice

Licence conditions restricting an offender’s movement engage the offender’s Article 8 rights. They may nevertheless be justified where necessary and proportionate to protect victims and their families from both accidental contact and the fear and distress associated with it.

The decision-maker must make sufficient inquiry, consider the offender’s reintegration and family life, weigh competing Article 8 interests, and consider less intrusive alternatives. A published policy should ordinarily be followed, but a variation may be justified by changed circumstances or new information. Courts should accord substantial weight to probation expertise and intervene only for a clear public law error.

The claimant challenged decisions by the Secretary of State for Justice expanding an exclusion zone in her release licence from Roffey to Horsham. The expansion prevented her from visiting the area where her family lived, while protecting a former child victim of her offending and his family, who lived nearby.

She alleged irrationality, disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights, and procedural unfairness. The May 2025 decision was reconsidered and replaced by a further decision dated 29 October 2025. The central issues were whether the fresh decision was lawful and whether the first decision had become academic.

1. Disposition. The claim was dismissed. The May 2025 decision had been superseded by the full reconsideration in October 2025, so no relief could be granted in relation to it: