Key Facts
- •AA, a 20-year-old Portuguese national, was serving a sentence at HMP Peterborough, a private prison operated by Sodexo.
- •AA challenged the SSHD's decision to deem her ineligible for Home Detention Curfew (HDC) due to a deportation decision and Sodexo's refusal to release her on HDC.
- •The claim focused on the legal effect of a combined stage 1 decision letter issued by the SSHD and whether it constituted a 'decision to make a deportation order'.
- •The SSHD withdrew all deportation decisions before the hearing, rendering the claim potentially academic.
- •AA was a vulnerable young woman with a baby, found to be a victim of modern slavery.
- •There was confusion in decision-making by the SSHD and the prison regarding AA's eligibility for HDC.
- •The combined stage 1 letter caused inconsistencies in HDC eligibility for foreign national prisoners, particularly young offenders.
Legal Principles
A claim is academic if its outcome does not directly affect the rights and obligations of the parties.
R (L) v Devon County Council [2021] EWCA Civ 358
Courts should not opine on academic or hypothetical issues in public law cases unless there are exceptional circumstances in the public interest.
R (Heathrow Hub Limited) v Secretary of State for Transport [2020] EWCA Civ 213
A person is liable to removal from the UK if liable to deportation under s.5 of the Immigration Act 1971 and notified of a decision to make a deportation order (s.259 CJA 2003).
Criminal Justice Act 2003, s.259
The Secretary of State for Justice has discretionary power to release eligible prisoners on HDC (s.246(1) CJA 2003), but not if liable to removal (s.246(4)(f) CJA 2003).
Criminal Justice Act 2003, s.246
Prisons must satisfy themselves they have all relevant information when exercising their discretion (Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1977] AC 1014).
Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1977] AC 1014
Outcomes
The claim against the SSHD was allowed to continue despite being potentially academic due to exceptional circumstances.
The SSHD's confused decision-making, impacting vulnerable young foreign national prisoners' access to HDC, warranted further examination in the public interest. The combined stage 1 letter created significant confusion.
The claim against Sodexo was stayed.
The claim against Sodexo was deemed fact-sensitive and did not meet the criteria for proceeding with an academic issue as set out in Zoolife.