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.
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.
We need facts more than ever.
Right now, it’s difficult to know what or who to trust. Misinformation is spreading. Politics and the media are being pushed to the limit by advancements in technology and uncertainty about the future. We need facts more than ever.
This is where you come in. Your donation is vital for our small, independent team to keep going, at the time when it’s needed most. With your help, we can keep factchecking and demanding better from our politicians and public figures.We can give more people the tools to decide for themselves what to believe. We can intervene more effectively where false claims cause most harm.
Become a donor today and stand up for better public debate, on all sides, across the UK.