Absconding prisoners: the human rights case that wasn't
The High Court ruled yesterday (presumably before the Royal Courts of Justice were evacuated) that a policy barring prisoners from being transfered to open prisons if they have a history of absconding was unlawful.
Those of us reading the account of the case, taken by a prisoner named John Gilbert, that was given in this morning's Daily Mail would do well to read the story carefully. The first line says that this ban was overturned "following a human rights challenge".
But further down in the story, it's mentioned that "the High Court did not rule on the ban's legality under human rights laws".
What the court said was that the policy was inconsistent with another policy—that "most (if not all)" prisoners serving Mr. Gilbert's type of sentence should spend some time in open prisons.
Join 72,953 people who trust us to check the facts
Sign up to get weekly updates on politics, immigration, health and more.
Subscribe to weekly email newsletters from Full Fact for updates on politics, immigration, health and more. Our fact checks are free to read but not to produce, so you will also get occasional emails about fundraising and other ways you can help. You can unsubscribe at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy.
The judges described it as "irrational" for the Parole Board to have to follow two contradictory policies at the same time.
So although Mr. Gilbert had also argued that the policy was contrary to the Human Rights Act 1998, the court simply didn't have to consider that point—he'd already won.
Abolishing the Human Rights Act—a Conservative proposal we'll analyse shortly—wouldn't have changed the outcome of this particular case.