LD & Ors, R. (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Justice
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- LADY JUSTICE RAFFERTY DBE
- MR JUSTICE COLLINS
Areas of Law
- Human Rights Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case addresses the legality of strip-searches conducted on three female prisoners at HMP Send, which were conceded to be unlawful due to deviations from established instructions. The court examined whether these searches and the strip-search policy complied with Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. While the searches were found unlawful, the broader policy was upheld. The decision underscores the requirement for conducting searches in prisons to respect human rights and follow proper procedures. The case also discussed costs, highlighting both parties' procedural conduct.
J U D G M E N T
1. MR JUSTICE COLLINS : There are three claims before the court by prisoners who at the relevant time were held at HMP Send and who contend that they were unlawfully strip-searched. Two, BK and RH, were searched on 28 February 2013 following the indication by a dog trained to react to drugs, and perhaps alcohol, outside their respective cells following a wing search. This had resulted, according to what is set out in the grounds served in opposition to the claims, from the knowledge that a dishonest prison officer had smuggled alcohol and other prohibited items into the prison. JT was searched on 5 April 2013 as a result of information, which she disputes, that she had been dealing in drugs.
2. At the outset of the hearing we had to consider an application made on behalf of the claimants, first to amend the grounds and, secondly, to debar the defendant from defending because of failures to comply with various orders made in relation to service of evidence and acknowledgement of service. So far as the former is concerned, nothing really turned on that and we will give such relief as we consider to be appropriate on the basis of the material that is before us.
3. So far as the latter, that is the application to debar is concerned, we accept that it can apply in public law cases but, generally, that will be the case only where the claim involves an individual who has, it is said, been unlawfully treated by a particular decision or action of a public body. But where, as here, there is an attack on a policy, or the judgment of the court is intended to deal with a matter which could have a wide effect, then in my view it would be exceedingly rare that to debar would be appropriate.
4. I have learnt not to say never, but it seems to me that in a case such as that, never would almost certainly be appropriate. The reason is obvious. If it is to have a wide effect, it is necessary that the court is in a position to have considered all the arguments and all necessary evidence to support whatever action or policy is in issue before reaching its decision. If it does not, then its decision will carry far less weight and it will always be open to another to say, that that court did not consider the arguments in full and therefore its decision can be reconsidered. That is not a satisfactory state of affairs.
5. Despite what are recognised to be serious failures to meet the terms of court orders - and the excuses put forward are not in the least s