1. On 8 November 2006 the appellant and his two co-accused were convicted of the racially-aggravated abduction and murder of a 15 year old boy, who was selected at random and abducted from a public street, repeatedly stabbed, and set alight with petrol. The appalling nature of that crime was reflected in the sentences imposed.

2. The appellant was extradited from Pakistan in order to stand trial, and on 6 October 2005 was remanded in custody pending his trial. On 7 October 2005 he was removed from association with other prisoners and placed in solitary confinement, otherwise described as segregation. Apart from the period immediately prior to and during his trial, when he was accommodated in mainstream conditions, he remained in continuous segregation until 13 August 2010. Altogether, he spent 56 months in segregation.

3. For a prisoner in Scotland to spend almost five years in segregation is exceptional. The situation of the appellant and his co-accused was exceptional primarily because of the media coverage which they attracted as a result of the nature of their crime. They were notorious as the perpetrators of a crime which, because of its racist nature, and the fact that the victim was a child, was liable to result in their being attacked by other prisoners. In consequence, there were persistent fears for their safety if they were accommodated in mainstream conditions.

4. In these proceedings, the appellant seeks orders declaring that certain periods of his segregation were contrary to the relevant Prison Rules, and that there were violations of his Convention rights under articles 3 and 8 of the European

Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”), as given effect by the Human Rights Act

1998. He also seeks an award of damages as just satisfaction under section 8 of that Act. The Ministers expressly acknowledge that the nature of the crime committed

does not justify a contravention of the appellant’s Convention rights. As Lord Steyn

observed in R (Roberts) v Parole Board [2005] UKHL 45; [2005] 2 AC 738, para
84, even the most wicked of men are entitled to justice at the hands of the state.

5. The appellant first applied for legal aid to bring this application for judicial review in February 2007, when he had been in segregation for about 15 months. Legal aid was finally granted in June 2010, when he had been in segregation for about four and a half years. The application was heard a year later, by which time…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Shahid v Scottish Ministers

Details

AGLC: Shahid v Scottish Ministers [2015] UKSC 58
Case: [2015] UKSC 58
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant in this case was convicted of the racially-aggravated abduction and murder of a 15 year old boy, and was sentenced to imprisonment. He was remanded in custody pending trial, and was segregated from the general prison population for the first time on 7 October 2005. He remained in segregation for almost five years. The appellant sought judicial review of the decision to keep him in segregation, arguing that it was unlawful and violated his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. The Scottish Ministers accepted that the nature of the crime did not justify the violation of the appellant’s Convention rights. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court, which found in favour of the appellant. The court found that the appellant’s segregation was unlawful because it was not in accordance with the Prison Rules, which required the Scottish Ministers to grant authority for continued segregation within 72 hours of the initial order. The court also found that the appellant’s segregation violated his Convention rights under article 8, as it was not proportionate and there was no meaningful plan for his integration into the mainstream. The court granted a declarator that the appellant’s segregation was unlawful and violated his Convention rights, and found the appellant entitled to the costs of the appeal.

Orders