*/
The High Court ruled that Lord Chancellor, Chris Grayling, acted unlawfully in seeking to ban prisoners with a history of absconding from being moved to open prisoners.
Judges said the Lord Chancellor’s policy was at odds with his own official directions to the Parole Board. They rejected the Lord Chancellor’s “striking” claim that since he issued the directions he was not bound by them, but could “ignore or contradict” them. “So long as they remian in force... he cannot lawfully tell the Board to ignore them or his officials to frustrate them,” the judges ruled. A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said it would appeal the ruling.
Judges said the Lord Chancellor’s policy was at odds with his own official directions to the Parole Board. They rejected the Lord Chancellor’s “striking” claim that since he issued the directions he was not bound by them, but could “ignore or contradict” them. “So long as they remian in force... he cannot lawfully tell the Board to ignore them or his officials to frustrate them,” the judges ruled. A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said it would appeal the ruling.
The High Court ruled that Lord Chancellor, Chris Grayling, acted unlawfully in seeking to ban prisoners with a history of absconding from being moved to open prisoners.
Now is the time to tackle inappropriate behaviour...
A comparison – Dan Monaghan, Head of DWF...
And if not, why not? asks Louise Crush of...
Marie Law, Head of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs,...
To mark International Women’s Day, Louise Crush...
Casey Randall of AlphaBiolabs answers some of...
Marking Neurodiversity Week 2025, an anonymous...
David Wurtzel analyses the outcome of the 2024...
Save for some high-flyers and those who can...
Patrick Green KC talks about the landmark Post...
Desiree Artesi meets Malcolm Bishop KC, the...