National Asociation of Probation Officers, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE IRWIN
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The claimant, representing probation officers, challenged the decision to sell CRCs under the Probation Service reorganization. They sought specific disclosures to prepare for a judicial review, arguing the unsafety of proceeding without addressing safety concerns. The defendant opposed this, citing potential disruption. The court, referencing principles from earlier cases, balanced the need for disclosure against potential disruption and granted partial disclosure, ensuring that the case could proceed fairly and justly.
J U D G M E N T
MR JUSTICE IRWIN: I am very grateful to counsel for their great help in making submissions so rapidly but also so effectively.
The claimant is a trade union and professional association representing probation officers and probation service officers. The Probation Service falls within the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Justice. The statutory basis for the Probation Service is principally laid out in the Offender Management Act 2007 .
The defendant has set in train a reorganisation of probation services which is called "Transformation of Rehabilitation". That was implemented on 1st June 2014. In outline, the reorganisation shifts the system from 35 regional probation trusts into a split system. The National Probation Service is responsible for court reports, enforcing breaches of community sentences and supervising high risk offenders. Community rehabilitation companies (CRCs) are responsible for providing rehabilitative courses and supervising offenders at low and medium risk.
The defendant wishes to sell the CRCs to third parties. It is anticipated that the defendant's decision on whether to proceed to sale of the CRCs will be taken on or around 3rd December. The defendant takes the point that until that decision is finally taken it is inappropriate to challenge the outcome. At the same time the defendant seeks to avoid disruption of the process of sale.
The claimant opposed the transformation programme in principle but has conceded that its arguments were unavailing. The claimant seeks permission to challenge the lawfulness of the decision to proceed with the sale of CRCs if it is taken, unless and until a number of safety issues are established, and critically for this application, established on evidence disclosed to the claimant. Clearly if the defendant decides it is not safe or proper to proceed with the sales the matter will become academic.
Recognising that the defendant's desire is to sell the CRCs and anticipating that the decision may be that it is safe to do so, the claimant seeks specific disclosure in this application so as to make a rapid informed application for permission for judicial review if the defendant's decision is to proceed.
The defendant rejects the application for disclosure as excessive, unnecessary and disruptive of the defendant's intended programme of sale. In his skeleton argument Mr Weisselberg QC, for the defendant, sets out why the additional disclosure sought is, he says, unnecessary