Editorial Committee of the Cambridge Law Journal

Prison Discipline and Judicial ReviewAuthor(s): Stephanie PalmerSource: The Cambridge Law Journal, Vol. 47, No. 2 (Jul., 1988), pp. 165-167Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of Editorial Committee of the Cambridge LawJournalStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4507152 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 06:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Cambridge University Press and Editorial Committee of the Cambridge Law Journal are collaborating withJSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Cambridge Law Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.22 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 06:55:12 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

C.L.J. Case and Comment 165

referring the patient to another doctor who might not hold his

conscientious objections to abortion.

Andrew Grubb.

C.L.J. Case and Comment 165

referring the patient to another doctor who might not hold his

conscientious objections to abortion.

Andrew Grubb.

PRISON DISCIPLINE AND JUDICIAL REVIEW

The House of Lords' decision in Leech v. Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison [1988] 2 W.L.R. 290 extends judiciai review to

prison governors' disciplinary hearings. This is to be welcomed in so

far as it is likely to improve procedural standards and fairness in such

hearings. The case involved two appellants, Leech and Prevot, each charged

with separate offences against prison discipline. The charges were

found proved by the prison deputy governors in both cases; punish- ments of loss of remission ensued. The two appellants alleged that

the hearings had not been carried out in accordance with the rules of

natural justice. On petition to the Secretary of State, the finding of

guilt against Leech was found unsafe and punishment was remitted.

Although the prospective. date of release was amended, the Secretary of State was powerless under the Prison Rules to quash a finding of

guilty and the conviction remained on the appellant's record. Prevot's

petitions to the Secretary of State were unsuccessful. Leech and

Prevot were granted leave to apply for judiciai review.

The respondents argued that Parliament had expressly imposed on the Secretary of State the duty to ensure the compliance of

governors with prison legislation; there was no need for the court to

intervene unless the Secretary of State had failed to perform that

duty, and it was that failure alone which should be subject to review.

Lord Bridge described this proposition as "fundamentally fallacious":

it was an established principle that "where any person or body exercises a power conferred by statute which affects the rights or

legitimate expectations of citizens and is of a kind which the law

requires to be exercised in accordance with the rules of natural

justice, the court has power to review the exercise of that power"

(p. 306). In the view of Lord Bridge, a prison governor's adjudication bore "the classic hallmark" of an authority subject to judiciai review.

The court reiterated that the existence of an alternative remedy could

never be sufficient to negate this jurisdiction, although it would be a

relevant factor in determining whether or not the court's discretion

should be exercised.

To justify an exclusion of the court's jurisdiction, the respondents

distinguished between the role of the Board of Visitors and that of

the governors. If this distinction was rejected then their entire case would fail, since R. v. Board of Visitors of Hull Prison, ex parte St.

PRISON DISCIPLINE AND JUDICIAL REVIEW

The House of Lords' decision in Leech v. Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison [1988] 2 W.L.R. 290 extends judiciai review to

prison governors' disciplinary hearings. This is to be welcomed in so

far as it is likely to improve procedural standards and fairness in such

hearings. The case involved two appellants, Leech and Prevot, each charged

with separate offences against prison discipline. The charges were

found proved by the prison deputy governors in both cases; punish- ments of loss of remission ensued. The two appellants alleged that

the hearings had not been carried out in accordance with the rules of

natural justice. On petition to the Secretary of State, the finding of

guilt against Leech was found unsafe and punishment was remitted.

Although the prospective. date of release was amended, the Secretary of State was powerless under the Prison Rules to quash a finding of

guilty and the conviction remained on the appellant's record. Prevot's

petitions to the Secretary of State were unsuccessful. Leech and

Prevot were granted leave to apply for judiciai review.

The respondents argued that Parliament had expressly imposed on the Secretary of State the duty to ensure the compliance of

governors with prison legislation; there was no need for the court to

intervene unless the Secretary of State had failed to perform that

duty, and it was that failure alone which should be subject to review.

Lord Bridge described this proposition as "fundamentally fallacious":

it was an established principle that "where any person or body exercises a power conferred by statute which affects the rights or

legitimate expectations of citizens and is of a kind which the law

requires to be exercised in accordance with the rules of natural

justice, the court has power to review the exercise of that power"

(p. 306). In the view of Lord Bridge, a prison governor's adjudication bore "the classic hallmark" of an authority subject to judiciai review.

The court reiterated that the existence of an alternative remedy could

never be sufficient to negate this jurisdiction, although it would be a

relevant factor in determining whether or not the court's discretion

should be exercised.

To justify an exclusion of the court's jurisdiction, the respondents

distinguished between the role of the Board of Visitors and that of

the governors. If this distinction was rejected then their entire case would fail, since R. v. Board of Visitors of Hull Prison, ex parte St.

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.22 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 06:55:12 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.22 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 06:55:12 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.22 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 06:55:12 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions