[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Williams, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice & Anor [2010] EWHC 407 (Admin) (10 February 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2010/407.html Cite as: [2010] EWHC 407 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		10 February 2010

1. THE DEPUTY JUDGE: Dealing first with the fact that the claimant is not represented here before me today, I was told that his solicitors have recently applied to come off the record following the cancellation of his legal aid certificate, although the court has not yet received that notice. Nevertheless, the solicitors are not here and the claimant himself has not turned up. He has however, I am told, been contacted on his mobile phone, and he advised that he was unaware that the hearing was today, but says that he is happy for the matter to be dealt with in his absence.
2. I have considered very carefully whether it is right to proceed without his being present, bearing in mind that he has only very recently lost his legal aid funding. But it seems to me that, since the case is an old one, and it may be more to his advantage to have a decision so that he can put the matter behind him and carry on with his life, I should hear the case today.
3. The case has been put very fairly on behalf of the defendant by Mr Clarke, who has been at pains to draw to my attention any points that might be made in favour of the claimant, and therefore, although he was not represented, I feel that valuable assistance has been given to me about the claimant's case of the variety that would have been given had he been represented.
4. Turning now to the facts, the claimant was convicted of manslaughter on 5 May 2005 following an incident in which he stabbed somebody to death. He was sentenced to five years' imprisonment. He was released on licence on 23 March 2007 on various conditions, which included, inter alia, that he reside in nominated hostel accommodation.
5. On 18 May 2007, he was recalled following an incident, when he threatened a fellow hostel resident. On 16 July 2007, the Parole Board reviewed the claimant's case on paper, including written representations by the claimant, which did not challenge the fact of his recall, but asked to be released. The Parole Board decision letter of that review stated, in effect, that the claimant presented an unacceptable risk that could not be safely managed without a stable and supportive release address, and refused to recommend his immediate release.
6. The letter set a further review date of on or before 20 August 2007. That further review took place a little later than intended on 4 September 2007, but, as I understand it, no complaint is made about that. The decision letter following that review noted that a full risk management plan had been prepared based on the need to find the claimant non-hostel accommodation, and that applications had by that time been made to a number of providers. The outcome of those was not available as at the date of that review, and so a further review date was set for on or before 4 October. It was stated that the following information should be available at that review: an updated risk management plan, including firm details of the proposed accommodation, paying particular accommodation to the support offered in relation to the claimant's alcohol and mental health problems, any appropriate updates on the claimant's behaviour and progress in custody, and any representations that the claimant might wish to make.
7. That review did not take place on or before 4 October, and it was in relation the continuing delay in conducting the review that the claimant originally based his claim for judicial review, which was filed on 27 November 2007. The delay was in fact brought to an end three days later, by a review conducted on 30 November 2007. The claimant was eventually released on either 17 or 18 January 2008. The precise date is not clear from the papers, but it is a point of no matter.
8. The claimant obtained leave to amend the grounds of his claim, and now claims damages for breach of his Article 5(4) and Article 8 rights on the ground of the delay in holding the review, scheduled for 4 October, but not held until 30 November 2007, which, he says, caused him to be detained in prison longer than he would otherwise have been. Whether or not that claim is sustainable depends upon whether or not the claimant can establish that the delay complained of was causative of his continued detention. That, in turn, depends upon his establishing that suitable accommodation was available for him as at 4 October, or could have been made available for him as at that date.
9. Dealing first with the Article 8 point, it seems to me that that was invoked when the judicial review application was originally made, primarily to deal with the fact that the claimant's son was at about that time due to be adopted, and the claimant was understandably anxious to be released to enable him to have a last visit, such visits having to take place before the adoption is finalised. It is not clear that the Article 8 claim is still live, and I have seen and heard nothing which suggests to me that that is a matter which requires to be taken into account today.
10. As far as Article 5.4 is concerned, it is not established that there has been a breach. It is true that the review did not take place on the scheduled date, but that itself does not constitute a breach, because matters were proceeding in the background to try and meet the requirements for the claimant's accommodation, without which he was held to present an unacceptable risk that could not otherwise be safely managed.
11. That may be an end of the matter, but it is right to go on and consider the question of causation. Whether or not any such claim is sustainable depends upon whether or not the claimant can establish that the delay complained of was causative of his continued detention. That in turn depends upon his establishing that suitable accommodation was available for him as at 4 October.
12. The evidence about that is primarily contained in the statements of Ms Choraffa, the claimant's probation officer, and in particular in her supplementary statement. In summary, she was on leave on the date of recall, but on her return to work a few days later on 21 May, she immediately began to investigate potential accommodation for the claimant in the event of his release. Her initial efforts were directed to having him accepted at the hostel in which he had been accommodated at the time of recall. That could not be pursued following the determination of the review held on 16 July that he needed supported accommodation. She was in regular communication with the claimant, and he made it clear that he wanted to be accommodated in the Skelmersdale area on his further release for the good reason that he wanted to be near his partner and her two children, who regarded him as their father.
13. She therefore set about looking for suitable accommodation in that area. This was to prove difficult because the claimant had been assessed as presenting a high risk of harm, and that, combined with his wish to be accommodated in that one area and the further assessed need for supported accommodation, severely limited her options.
14. The first suitable offer was made on 23 August 2007. It was from an organisation called Stoneham Housing, but was subject to two conditions. The first was that it would carry out its own risk assessment to determine whether or not the claimant presented an acceptable risk, and the second was of course the availability of a tenancy, there being none immediately available.
15. Eventually, it seems through the efforts of Ms Choraffa and her colleagues, Stoneham Housing was persuaded to accept the Probation Service's own risk assessment, and a firm offer of a tenancy was made on 26 September 2007. So that dealt with the first condition, which had been imposed by Stoneham Housing, but it did nothing about the second condition because that still remained, namely obviously that there had to be a tenancy available, and as at that date there was none. Nor was there any such accommodation available as at the date of 4 October, the planned date for the review about which complaint is made.
16. The first occasion on which there was a glimmer of hope for accommodation was on 7 December 2007, when Ms Choraffa was advised by Stoneham Housing that accommodation was due to become available in the week commencing 4 January following the giving of four weeks' notice by one of its residents, that the claimant had been moved to the top of Stoneham Housing's list, and that the accommodation which was scheduled to become available in that week had been assigned to him. He in fact, as I have already stated, was provided with that accommodation on about 17 or 18 January.
17. On this analysis of the facts, even if there had been a breach of Article 5.4, the continued detention of the claimant was not caused by the failure of either the first or the second defendant to conduct a review on or before 4 October 2007, or to take proper efforts to find accommodation for him, but by the unavailability of accommodation by any housing provider which would accept someone with the claimant's assessment risks in the geographical area requested by him, and which met his assessed needs for supported housing.
18. In summary, there is no claim, and it is dismissed.
19. MR CLARKE: My Lady, I make no application. We are grateful for you for taking this on at short notice and so quickly.
20. THE DEPUTY JUDGE: Thank you very much for the assistance you have given me.