Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Fuad Awale, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice

9 September 2024
[2024] EWHC 2322 (Admin)
High Court
A prisoner was kept in his cell for almost all day for a long time. The court said the prison didn't follow the rules, wasn't fair, and didn't consider if racism affected the prisoner. The court said the prison must pay for this.

Key Facts

  • •Fuad Awale, a British Somali Muslim serving a life sentence for murder, was held in a close supervision centre (CSC) and largely confined to his cell for up to 23 hours a day since April 2022.
  • •The claim challenged the lawfulness of his prolonged segregation, not the CSC detention itself.
  • •The Claimant alleged a lack of transparency and fairness in the decision-making process regarding his association with other prisoners.
  • •The Claimant alleged discrimination due to racism and Islamophobia within the CSC system.
  • •The Claimant's lack of association stemmed from various factors including his own actions, risk assessments, and limited capacity within the CSC.

Legal Principles

Rule 46(2) of the Prison Rules 1999 requires monthly review and renewal of a prisoner's removal from association.

Prison Rules 1999, Rule 46(2)

Common law requires fairness in decisions regarding prisoner segregation, including providing meaningful opportunities to make representations with sufficient reasons.

Bourgass and Hussain v SoSJ [2016] AC 384

Article 8 ECHR protects private life; interference must be 'in accordance with the law' and 'necessary in a democratic society'.

European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8

The PSED under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 requires 'due regard' to the need to eliminate discrimination and advance equality of opportunity.

Equality Act 2010, section 149

Outcomes

Ground One succeeded: The Claimant's removal from association was unlawful due to the lack of monthly reviews.

Rule 46(2) requires monthly review, and no Rule 46(3) direction (permitting association) was given.

Ground Two succeeded: The Claimant was not provided with sufficient reasons to make meaningful representations regarding his segregation.

The reasons given were inadequate, preventing meaningful participation in the decision-making process.

Ground Three succeeded: The Claimant's removal from association violated Article 8 ECHR due to non-compliance with domestic law (Grounds One and Two) and insufficient procedural safeguards.

The legal framework lacked clarity and failed to provide necessary procedural protections against arbitrary interference.

Ground Five succeeded: The Defendant breached her PSED by failing to investigate the potential disadvantage faced by Muslim and non-White prisoners due to racist inmates.

The Defendant did not make reasonable inquiries to determine the impact of racist prisoners on association and progression.

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.