Petition by Brian Hannah for Judicial Review (Court of Session)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant is a serving prisoner who sought judicial review to challenge a disciplinary decision dated 4 June 2023 concerning his conduct. The disciplinary proceedings arose after a body scan on 1 June 2023 at a prison facility identified anomalies leading two prison officers to conclude that the Appellant was concealing an item internally. The Appellant was charged with a breach of discipline under the Prison and Young Offenders Institutes (Scotland) Rules 2011 for possession or concealment of an unauthorised article. A disciplinary hearing was held on 4 June 2023, where the Appellant pleaded not guilty and opted not to call witnesses or provide a written statement. The adjudicator found the Appellant guilty based primarily on a report from a prison officer. The Appellant did not appeal the disciplinary decision but instead sought judicial review on the ground of irrationality. Permission for judicial review was granted only on the issue of rationality, with other grounds refused. The substantive hearing took place on 7 May 2024.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the disciplinary decision of 4 June 2023 was irrational, specifically whether it lacked a proper factual basis or was so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have reached it.
2. Whether the adjudicator’s decision was lawful within the scope of the statutory discretion and procedural rules governing disciplinary hearings.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The disciplinary decision was irrational and lacked a sufficient factual basis, falling short of the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
• The scan result was presumptive and could be explained by normal bodily gases, as indicated in expert reports.
• The belief of the prison officers was insufficient to support the finding of guilt.
• Concerns were raised about the adequacy of training for officers interpreting scan results.
• The Appellant was not given adequate notice of the charge, specifically regarding the identity of the alleged concealed article.
• The explanation for the disciplinary decision was inadequate.
• Suggested additional investigative steps (e.g., further scans, CT scans, monitoring bowel movements) could have avoided claims of irrationality but were not taken.

Respondent's Arguments

• The disciplinary hearing complied with procedural rules and the adjudicator was entitled to rely on the written evidence without oral testimony.
• The focus of judicial review should be on the adjudicator’s decision, not the officers’ assessment of the scan image.
• Officers had specific training on the scanner, including awareness of alternative explanations such as gas.
• It was unnecessary to prove the identity of the article as the Appellant had no authority to conceal any item.
• The Appellant understood the charge and evidence presented.
• Expert reports did not exclude the possibility of concealment of an article.
• The additional investigative steps proposed were unrealistic, unsafe, or excessively intrusive.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court accepted that the relevant legal test for irrationality is whether the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have reached it, following established precedent. The disciplinary hearing complied with procedural requirements, including the Appellant’s agreement to proceed on written evidence only. The adjudicator’s decision was based on a prison officer’s report, which was the sole evidence considered, and this was permissible under the rules. The court found the decision fell within the range of reasonable responses available to the adjudicator.

The court considered but ultimately rejected the Appellant’s argument that the scan anomaly could be explained by bowel gas. It noted that the prison officers had specific training and experience in interpreting the scanner images and had accounted for such possibilities. The expert reports did not conclusively exclude the presence of a concealed article. The absence of more detailed evidence or additional investigative steps did not render the decision irrational. The court also found that the Appellant had sufficient notice of the charge and the basis for the decision.

Consequently, the court concluded that the disciplinary adjudicator’s decision was rational and lawful, and the petition for judicial review failed.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final decision was to REFUSE THE PETITION.

This ruling upheld the disciplinary decision against the Appellant and dismissed the claim of irrationality. The decision does not establish new legal precedent but confirms the application of established principles governing rationality review and procedural compliance in prison disciplinary hearings. The court reserved the question of expenses.