Introduction

The case of Neil Robertson vs. Scottish Government ([2022] ScotCS CSOH_45) presents a significant judicial review focusing on the petitioner’s access to the community while serving a discretionary life sentence in the Scottish prison system. Mr. Robertson, represented by Leighton, Drummond Miller LLP, challenges the decision made by the respondents' Risk Management Team (RMT) on November 8, 2019, which affected his management within the prison. Central to this case are issues surrounding the application of the Equality Act 2010, particularly concerning reasonable adjustments for disabilities, and the procedural fairness in security management within the correctional system.

Summary of the Judgment

The Scottish Court of Session, presided over by Lord Braid, deliberated on whether the judicial review petition filed by Neil Robertson was academic and lacked practical purpose, thereby siding with the respondents' fourth plea in law. The court assessed the relevance and impact of the November 2019 RMT decision, considering subsequent actions and management plans that the RMT had implemented. Ultimately, the court determined that the petitioner did not have a substantial interest in setting aside the 2019 decision, as subsequent decisions had been based on new information and represented independent assessments. Additionally, the court found that declaratory remedies and damages sought by the petitioner were either futile or beyond the court’s supervisory jurisdiction, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key precedents that shaped the court’s approach to judicial review in the context of administrative decisions:

• King v East Ayrshire Council (1998 SC 182): Established that the court generally refrains from granting reductions of administrative decisions unless there is a substantial interest affecting practical outcomes.
• JM [2011] CSOH 174: Demonstrated that mere procedural remedies without tangible benefits are insufficient for judicial intervention.
• Penman, Petitioner 2015 SLT 597: Highlighted that reductions of disciplinary decisions with no ongoing practical impact are inappropriate.
• Boum v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] CSOH 111: Discussed the limitations of granting declaratory judgments without accompanying reductions.
• Ruddy v Chief Constable Strathclyde Police (2013 UKSC 126) and Docherty v Scottish Ministers (2012 SC 150): Reinforced that claims for damages pertain to completed wrongs and cannot be amalgamated into judicial review petitions.
• O'Neill v Scottish Ministers [2021] CSIH 66: Addressed time-bar issues in future petitions related to past administrative decisions.
• Ashingdane v The United Kingdom (1985) 7 EHRR 528 and Kutic v Croatia 2002 ECHR 297: Examined Article 6 rights concerning the right to a fair trial, though deemed inapplicable due to the petition being academic.
• Brown v Hamilton District Council (1983 SC (HL) 1): Provided dicta on the futility of certain declaratory decrees.
• Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council and Others [2011] CSIH 9: Clarified the limited scope of decrees available in a petition process, restricting courts to granting or refusing petitions.

Legal Reasoning

Lord Braid meticulously dissected the petitioner’s claims against the legal standards governing judicial reviews. The core legal reasoning encompassed:

• Discretionary Nature of Reduction: Acknowledging that judicial discretion is a safeguard against overreach, the court emphasized that reductions are not to be granted frivolously, especially when they offer no practical advantage.
• Substantial Interest: Based on King v East Ayrshire Council, the court evaluated whether Mr. Robertson possessed a substantial interest in having the 2019 RMT decision set aside, concluding that subsequent independent decisions nullified this interest.
• Evolution of Management: The dynamic nature of prison management was pivotal. The court observed that since the November 2019 decision, multiple RMT meetings had introduced new factors and assessments, rendering the original decision's reduction moot.
• Futility of Declaratory Remedies: Drawing from Boum and other cases, the court determined that declaratory judgments without accompanying reductions were ineffectual and failed to provide tangible benefits.
• Incompetence in Damages Claims within Judicial Review: Citing Ruddy and Docherty, the court clarified that pursuing damages requires separate proceedings, as they pertain to completed wrongs outside the supervisory jurisdiction of judicial reviews.
• Time-Bar Considerations: Addressing concerns raised under section 27A of the Court of Session Act 1988, the court distinguished this case from O'Neill, affirming that future decisions would constitute fresh grounds, thus not being time-barred.

Impact

This judgment has multifaceted implications:

• Strengthening Judicial Discretion: Reinforces the principle that judicial intervention is reserved for cases where there is a genuine and practical need for review, preventing courts from becoming conduits for academic disputes.
• Clarifying Remedies in Judicial Reviews: Distinguishes the boundaries between declaratory remedies and reductions, ensuring that courts do not issue ineffectual judgments without practical consequences.
• Equal Treatment and Reasonable Adjustments: While the petitioner’s claims under the Equality Act 2010 were dismissed, the case underscores the necessity for administrative bodies to conscientiously apply reasonable adjustments for disabilities within the prison system.
• Framework for Future Petitions: Offers a precedent for evaluating the substance and impact of managerial decisions in correctional facilities, particularly concerning the rights of inmates with disabilities.
• Procedural Efficiency: Dismisses claims that lack substantive impact, thereby conserving judicial resources and encouraging petitioners to present claims with tangible benefits.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Judicial Review

Judicial review is a legal process where courts examine the lawfulness of decisions or actions made by public bodies. It does not re-evaluate the merits of the decision but ensures that it was made following proper procedures and within legal boundaries.

Declarator

A declaratory judgment is a court statement that determines the rights of parties without ordering any specific action or awarding damages. It's essentially a legal "declaration" of the parties' rights.

Reduction of a Decision

In judicial reviews, "reduction" refers to the court setting aside or nullifying a specific administrative decision, thereby undoing its legal effects.

Academic Petition

A petition is deemed academic when it lacks practical implications or consequences. Essentially, it is considered irrelevant because its outcomes do not affect the petitioner in any meaningful way.

Reasonable Adjustment

Under the Equality Act 2010, public bodies must make reasonable adjustments to ensure that individuals with disabilities are not at a substantial disadvantage compared to those without disabilities.

Equality Duties

The Equality Act 2010 imposes duties on public bodies to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations among different groups of people.

Conclusion

The judicial review of Neil Robertson's petition underscores the judiciary's role in maintaining a balance between individual rights and the discretionary powers of public bodies. By affirming that the petition was academic and lacked practical benefits, the court reinforced the principle that not all claims of administrative errors warrant judicial intervention, especially when subsequent independent decisions have addressed or rendered the original decisions moot.

Furthermore, the judgment delineates the limitations of remedies available through judicial reviews, such as the futility of declaratory judgments without operational effects and the inappropriateness of intertwining damages claims within this procedural framework. This case serves as a critical reference point for future petitions, particularly those involving complex administrative decisions within the prison system and the application of the Equality Act 2010.

Overall, the decision emphasizes the necessity for petitioners to present claims with clear, practical implications and for public bodies to diligently consider reasonable adjustments in their administrative processes to uphold the rights of individuals with disabilities.