McCreaner v Ministry of Justice
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE CRANSTON
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Civil Procedure
- Constitutional Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Human Rights Law
- Tort Law
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The claimant, a former prisoner, sought damages for additional imprisonment due to the Ministry of Justice's fault in not releasing him under the HDC scheme. The court found that he was unlawfully detained for 6 weeks due to prison negligence after it was aware of the Supreme Court's Noone decision, which entitled him to early release. The court dismissed claims of false imprisonment, misfeasance in public office, breach of the Human Rights Act 1998, and Ministry of Justice negligence in policy-making.
Judgment
Mr Justice Cranston:
Introduction
This is a claim for damages by a former prisoner. He contends that following the Supreme Court judgment in Noone [2010] UKSC 30 ; [2010] 1 WLR 1743 , he was not released under home detention curfew (“HDC”) as he should have been, through the fault of the Ministry of Justice. HDC is a scheme whereby prisoners are released early on curfew, which is monitored by the prisoner wearing an electronic device (a tag). He contends that he spent almost 4 months longer in prison than he should have and that he should be compensated for this. The claimant has pleaded his case as false imprisonment, negligence, misfeasance in public office and breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 . In my view the claims in false imprisonment, misfeasance and breach of Convention rights go nowhere. Nor does the attempt to make the Ministry of Justice liable in negligence for the development and adoption of policy in the light of Noone and for the process of identifying him as a beneficiary of the Supreme Court judgment. However, there was a subsequent period of 6 weeks where in my view he was unlawfully detained as the result of the negligence of the prison in failing to ensure that his case received the priority required by the Ministry of Justice’s policy.
At the hearing of the claim most of the time was occupied by legal submissions. The evidence of the claimant and his daughter was unchallenged. But short oral evidence was given by the claimant’s solicitor, Penelope Hunter. I also heard evidence from Chris Potter, who is responsible for HDC policy in the Sentencing Policy and Penalties Unit of the Ministry of Justice, and from Deborah Martin, who was employed by HM Prison Service for many years and at the relevant time worked as the offender management manager in the custody office at HMP Wayland, where the claimant was detained.
Background
On 10 December 2009, at the Crown Court at Blackfriars, the claimant was sentenced for burglary, breach of a suspended sentence order of 12 months and shoplifting committed to the Crown Court by the Magistrates’ Court. HH Judge Worsley imposed 12 months imprisonment for the burglary, activated the suspended sentence in full, and imposed 2 months’ imprisonment for the shoplifting, all the sentences to run consecutively. In the ordinary course of events that would be the order in which the judge pronounced sentence, with the burglary first and the shoplifting last. The aggregate sentence was 26 mon