Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Colin Gunn v Secretary of State for Justice

25 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 686 (Admin)
High Court
A prisoner challenged his high escape risk label. The judge said the prison's decision was reasonable based on the information they had, and that a face-to-face meeting wasn't needed because the prisoner already had a chance to explain his side in writing. The judge also suggested the prison should be clearer about when face-to-face meetings might happen.

Key Facts

  • •Colin Gunn, serving a life sentence for conspiracy to murder, challenges his 'High Escape Risk' classification.
  • •The classification impacts prison regime, security categorization, and parole prospects.
  • •The decision was based on intelligence suggesting Gunn is a leading member of an Organized Crime Group (OCG).
  • •Gunn argues irrationality (Ground 1) and procedural unfairness (Ground 2), primarily the lack of an oral hearing.
  • •The court considered several prior cases on prisoner classification challenges, acknowledging potential shifts in procedural fairness standards.
  • •The court reviewed intelligence reports, Gunn's submissions, and witness testimony from the Category A Review Team.

Legal Principles

Rationality review of expert risk assessments: Courts should not apply a 'super-irrationality' test but consider if the decision logically follows from the evidence.

This judgment

Procedural fairness in prisoner classification is fact and context-specific; standards from parole board cases cannot be directly applied.

R(Hassett & Price) v SSJ [2017] EWCA Civ 331

While a default rule against oral hearings in Escape Risk Classification (ERC) is acceptable, the policy should acknowledge the possibility of exceptions.

This judgment

Transparency and accessibility are crucial, especially for vulnerable individuals like prisoners; the possibility of an oral hearing should be clear in published policies.

This judgment

Outcomes

Claim dismissed.

The court found the escape risk classification decision was not irrational, and that procedural fairness did not require an oral hearing in this specific case.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.