WILLIAM BEGGS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ACTS OF PRISON AUTHORITIES IN RESPECT OF THE FAILURE TO ADVANCE PROGRESSION AND REQUEST A FURTHER PSYCHIATRIC REPORT

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff is a prisoner serving a life sentence in a prison in The City. The punishment part of his sentence expired on 27 December 2019. The Defendant is the Scottish Ministers. After expiry of the punishment part, the Parole Board may direct the Defendant to release the Plaintiff on licence if it is satisfied that confinement is no longer necessary for public protection. Progression to less secure prison conditions is necessary for the Plaintiff to have a realistic chance of satisfying the Parole Board.

The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) manages prisoner progression via a Risk Management Team (RMT), which reviews applications and may commission psychological risk assessments (PRAs). The Plaintiff submitted an application for progression in April 2019 and complained in July 2019 that the SPS had failed to consider his application within a reasonable time and had relied on an outdated PRA from 2015.

The prison’s internal complaints process, including the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), upheld the SPS’s position that the 2015 PRA was valid and that the Plaintiff’s application was being processed. The Plaintiff sought judicial review challenging the ICC’s decision on grounds of irrationality and delay.

At the substantive hearing in October 2020, the Plaintiff no longer sought orders compelling the Defendant to consider the application or commission a fresh PRA, limiting the challenge to the ICC decision of 15 August 2019.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether there was unreasonable delay by the Defendant in considering the Plaintiff’s application for progression within the prison system.
2. Whether the Defendant misinterpreted or failed to apply their own policy by effectively deeming the Plaintiff unsuitable for progression before his application was properly considered.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Defendant delayed providing key information on eligibility to apply for progression between October 2018 and March 2019.
• The Defendant delayed between 29 May 2019 (when the RMT confirmed the Plaintiff met standard criteria) and 15 August 2019 (ICC decision), failing to consider the application within a reasonable period.
• The Defendant delayed considering the application after the petition was lodged in November 2019.
• The Plaintiff argued the Defendant irrationally deemed him unsuitable for progression before proper consideration, particularly due to his refusal to complete offence-focused work.

Respondent's Arguments

• The period between October 2018 and March 2019 was irrelevant as no progression application had been made, and the Plaintiff failed to act on advice to raise his question with the RMT.
• The period between 29 May 2019 and 15 August 2019 did not constitute unreasonable delay, particularly since the Plaintiff was advised to complete paperwork and was on a waiting list due to resource constraints.
• Any delay after 15 August 2019 was irrelevant to the challenge as only the ICC decision was under review.
• The Plaintiff’s engagement with a new PRA process effectively “reset the clock,” making any prior complaints academic.
• The Defendant did not misinterpret policy; meeting standard criteria is necessary but not sufficient for progression, and suitability assessments by the RMT may require completion of offence-focused work.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully analysed the periods of alleged delay. It distinguished between delay prior to the application and delay in processing the application itself. The court found no evidence that the Defendant caused delay before the application was made, noting the Plaintiff failed to follow advice to raise eligibility questions with the RMT earlier.

Regarding the period from 29 May 2019 to 15 August 2019, the court recognised resource constraints and a waiting list as legitimate reasons for delay. The Defendant's policy required the Plaintiff to complete detailed paperwork and provide evidence of risk reduction, which had not been conclusively established. The court found no unreasonable delay or irrationality in the ICC's refusal to uphold the complaint.

The court held that any delay after the ICC decision was irrelevant to the challenge, as the petition only contested that decision. The Plaintiff’s subsequent engagement with a new PRA process meant that the earlier complaint was effectively academic, as the RMT could not proceed without the updated assessment.

The court rejected the Plaintiff’s contention that the Defendant unlawfully imposed additional eligibility hurdles by requiring offence-focused work before assessing suitability. It explained that meeting standard criteria is necessary but not sufficient, and the RMT may impose additional requirements specific to the individual or offender class. This approach was consistent with the Defendant’s policy.

The court also noted the availability of alternative remedies, such as complaints to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, which the Plaintiff had used but not pursued fully in this judicial review.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED THE PETITION, holding that the Plaintiff failed to establish any unreasonable delay or irrationality in the Defendant's handling of his progression application or the ICC decision of 15 August 2019.

The direct effect of this decision is to uphold the Defendant’s management of prisoner progression and internal complaint procedures in this case. No new precedent was established, and the court reserved questions of expenses. The decision underscores the importance of procedural compliance by applicants and confirms that progression eligibility involves both standard criteria and suitability assessments, including offence-focused work where relevant.