Brendon Oxendale, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 2407 (Admin)
Isaac Parker, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
10 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 1115 (Admin)
High Court
A prisoner sued the government for refusing to move him to an easier prison. The government then refused again, making the first lawsuit pointless. The judge threw out the lawsuit because it was no longer relevant, but noted the government was very slow and caused unfair delays.
Key Facts
- •Isaac Parker, a 67-year-old prisoner serving a sentence for indecent assault, sought judicial review of the Secretary of State for Justice's refusal to transfer him to an open prison.
- •The Parole Board twice recommended his transfer, but the Secretary of State twice refused, citing concerns about risk of absconding.
- •The initial judicial review application was rendered academic by a subsequent decision by the Secretary of State.
- •The Secretary of State's delays in decision-making were significant (8 months and 4 months respectively), breaching his own 28-day policy.
- •The case highlighted procedural unfairness caused by delays in the process, impacting prisoners' access to judicial review.
Legal Principles
Judicial review will not be granted where the claim has become academic due to supervening events.
R v Home Secretary ex p Salem [1999] AC 450; L, M and P v Devon County Council [2021] EWCA Civ. 358; Macnaughton v Macnaughton’s Trustees [1953] SC 387
The court retains discretion to hear academic claims in the public interest, but this discretion was not exercised in this case.
R v Home Secretary ex p Salem [1999] AC 450; L, M and P v Devon County Council [2021] EWCA Civ. 358
The court will not provide advisory opinions on hypothetical or academic questions.
Macnaughton v Macnaughton’s Trustees [1953] SC 387
Outcomes
The claim for judicial review was dismissed as academic due to the Secretary of State's subsequent decision.
The supervening decision rendered the challenge to the earlier decision moot. The court considered procedural unfairness but found it did not justify overriding the principle against hearing academic claims.
The application to adjourn or stay the claim was refused.
The court rejected the claimant's suggestion to circumvent the proper procedures of judicial review due to the delays, emphasizing the importance of procedural rigor.
The Defendant will pay the Claimant’s costs.
The Defendant's delays were acknowledged as a factor, but the parties agreed to this cost outcome.
Similar Cases
Adam Swellings, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 771 (Admin)
Cain, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 426 (Admin)
Steven Lee Draper, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 1892 (Admin)
Karl Oakley, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 292 (Admin)