Jason Kessie-AdjeiI v Secretary of State for Justice
[2023] EWCA Civ 720
In the matter of an application by Stephen Hilland for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland)
7 February 2024
[2024] UKSC 4
Supreme Court
A prisoner challenged his return to jail, claiming unfair treatment compared to other prisoners. The court said the rules for different types of prisoners are different because of the seriousness of their crimes and the risk they pose. The court considered the rules fairly balanced public safety with the rights of prisoners.
Key Facts
- •The appellant, a DCS prisoner, challenged his recall to prison, arguing unjustified discrimination under Article 14 ECHR in comparison to ICS and ECS prisoners.
- •The alleged discrimination stemmed from a less stringent risk-of-harm requirement for DCS prisoner recalls compared to a risk-of-serious-harm requirement for ICS/ECS prisoners.
- •The High Court and Court of Appeal dismissed the claim, finding DCS and ICS/ECS prisoners not in analogous situations and the difference in treatment objectively justified.
- •The appeal to the Supreme Court hinged on R (Stott) v Secretary of State for Justice and Stott v United Kingdom (ECtHR).
Legal Principles
To establish Article 14 ECHR violation, four elements must be proven: (1) circumstances fall within a Convention right; (2) difference in treatment based on Article 14 characteristics or 'other status'; (3) claimant and differently treated person in analogous situations; (4) lack of objective justification for different treatment.
R (Stott) v Secretary of State for Justice
There is flexibility in the order of addressing the 'analogous situation' and 'objective justification' elements of an Article 14 claim; a holistic approach may be appropriate.
Court of Appeal judgment
Article 5 ECHR guarantees the right to liberty and security of person, with limitations for lawful detention.
Article 5 ECHR
Article 14 ECHR secures enjoyment of Convention rights without discrimination.
Article 14 ECHR
In Article 14 claims, the focus should be on the overall sentencing regime rather than isolating specific provisions like early release.
R (Stott) and Stott v UK
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Supreme Court found the appellant's situation (DCS prisoner) not analogous to ICS/ECS prisoners due to the fundamentally different sentencing regimes and their respective aims. Even if analogous, the difference in treatment was objectively justified because of the distinct nature of the imprisonment regimes and the need to address varying levels of risk appropriately.