EW: Smoking ban applies to Crown prisons

The Administrative Division of the High Court has ruled that the prohibition of smoking in certain premises, places and vehicles applies to state prisons for which the Crown is responsible.

The case was taken by Paul Black, a prisoner at HMP Wymott since 2009. Mr. Black, convicted in 2007, is serving a sentence of indeterminate detention for public protection for sexual assault and outraging public decency. Mr. Black is a non-smoker with a history of serious health problems including angina and dysphnoea. In 2009 he required surgical intervention for an anterior myocardial infarction.

Three submissions were made on behalf of Mr. Black. The third submission, that the failure to enforce Rule 20(1) and Rule 34(2) of the Prison Rules 1999 is a breach of Mr. Black's expectations and the public law duty on the Secretary of State, was rejected because:

[...] the concept of legitimate expectation has nothing to do with the present case. As I understood it, reliance upon that concept was fairly abandoned at the hearing before me. The reason for this is that the present case does not concern a policy; it concerns a rule of law [...]

The second submission, that the Smoke Free Compliance Line be accessible, confidential and anonymous under Article 8 and Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, was also rejected:

In my judgment, the difficulty with [Mr. Black's] submission on this narrower ground is that there is no authority to support it, whether in the European Court of Human Rights or in the domestic Courts.

However, Mr. Justice Rabinder Singh did accept that Chapter 1 of Part 1 the Health Act 2006 applies to prisons for which the Crown is responsible:

In my judgment, the Secretary of State has proceeded on an erroneous understanding of the law. In my view, Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Health Act 2006 does apply to prisons and in particular to state prisons, for which the Crown is responsible.

The appropriate form of relief is yet to be decided by Mr. Justice Singh.

EW: Consumers party to an unregulated agreement are entitled to rights, remedies of a regulated agreement under the CCA insofar as the Act is applicable

The High Court (Commercial) has ruled that Northern Rock Asset Management (NRAM) formerly Northern Rock must pay out compensation to 41,000 former Northern Rock customers because of incorrect wording in Unsecured Together Loan Agreements.

Between 1999 and 2008 Northern Rock offered a product called Together Mortgage. The product allowed borrowers to borrow up to 95% of the value of their home on a secured loan, and in addition, take out a fixed unsecured loan of up to 30% of the value of their home, capped at £30,000.

However, the agreements entered into by consumers between 1999 and 2008 failed to differentiate between regulated and unregulated agreements. The same documentation was used for loans exceeding £25,000 as was used for loans of £25,000 or less.

Northern Rock Asset Management took the case against Jeffery McAdam and Ann Hartley. Both availed of a Together Mortgage in addition to taking out an unsecured loan of £30,000. The case was also taken in an effort to secure a legally binding opinion that its customers with loans in excess £25,000 were not entitled to compensation.

However, Mr. Justice Michael Burton found the rights and remedies under section 77A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 were applicable to Unsecured Together Loan Agreements. The failure of Northern Rock to indemnify Mr. McAdam and Ms. Hartley under the Act was a breach of its obligations under the Agreement.

The judgment means the public limited company could pay out approximately £258m, or roughly £6,300 per customer.

In 2012, Northern Rock Asset Management had to allocate roughly £270 to repay customers who had borrowed up to £25,000 because the wording in the documents failed to differentiate between regulated and unregulated agreements under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

EW: Justice Secretary must amend policy on prisoner book ban

The High Court (Administrative) has ruled that the prohibition on sending books to prisoners is unlawful. The prohibition imposed by the Justice Secretary Chris Grayling was overturned by Mr. Justice Andrew Collins, ordering an amendment to the policy on what prisoners can receive.

Mr. Justice Collins in ruling described as "strange" the reference to books as a privilege:

A book may not only be one which a prisoner may want to read but may be very useful or indeed necessary as part of a rehabilitation process.

The challenge to the prohibition was taken by Barbara Gordon-Jones, a 56-year-old serving an indefinite sentence for a number of offences including arson with intent to endanger life. 

Ms. Gordon-Jones, Mr. Justice Collins observed:

[...] has a doctorate in English literature and the books she wishes to read are often such as are not normally required by fellow prisoners.

Her interests include books by Alan Bennett, Monica Ali and the Dialogues of Marcus Aurelius.

Mr. Justice Collins accepted that there was no intention by ministers to prevent access to books with weekly earnings which can be as low as £2.50 meant the prohibition on books stopped short of an outright ban. However, Mr. Justice Collins noted the restrictions on what prisoners can receive from friends and relatives under the amended Incentives and Earned Privileges Scheme was viewed as an outright ban on books:

As I have said, I see no good reason in the light of the importance of books for prisoners to restrict beyond what is required by volumetric control and reasonable measures relating to frequency of parcels and security considerations

The prohibition was imposed by Justice Secretary Chris Grayling a year ago in a crackdown on prisoners' "perks and privileges".

EW: Technical defects not to be considered an extraordinary circumstance under Regulation No. 261/2004

The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) has dismissed an appeal by Jet2.com, an airline, who argued a flight delay because of technical defect amounted to an "extraordinary circumstance".

Rather, the Court upheld the judgment of Judge Platts at Manchester County Court that Ronald Huzar, a passenger, was entitled to compensation under European Union Regulation No. 261/2004 after suffering a 27 hour delay on a flight from Malaga, Spain, to Manchester, in October 2011.

The Court of Appeal judgment means that technical defects are not to be considered an "extraordinary circumstance" under the EU Regulation. Moreover, the judgment emphasises the requirement for airlines to pay compensation for delays of more than three hours.

The Court of Appeal judgment now brings the United Kingdom into line with other European countries, establishing much needed case precedent.

In a case where an airline claims "extraordinary circumstance", the onus of proof rests on the carrier. However the Court found the defence did not apply in the case of Mr. Huzar.

The judgment has retrospective application meaning anyone who has suffered a long delay on a qualifying flight since the summer of 2008 is entitled to claim.