Thompson, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice

1. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: This claim seeking judicial review is in relation to the policy which is applied by the Ministry of Justice for long-term prisoners that they will not, save in exceptional circumstances, be eligible for home detention curfew. The assertion in the claimant's case is that there is unlawful discrimination because those long-term prisoners who are not nationals and who are liable to be deported can be released early at a time when home detention curfew would normally apply in order to be removed. It is said that this is to discriminate in their favour against nationals, whereas the approach ought to be the same, namely: are they likely to be a danger, whether here or abroad?

2. The claimant has now been released from prison having reached the end of the detention period of his sentence. This claim was originally lodged back in 2007 -- in fact the decision in question was February 2007. Unfortunately, it has taken far too long to be listed. As a result, he has now completed the detention part of his sentence. In those circumstances, in his case the claim has become academic in the sense that he cannot benefit from the home detention curfew provisions, even if he were to establish that they ought to have been applied in his favour in all the circumstances.

3. When he was released from prison, he had an obligation to contact the Legal Services Commission so that they could know what his financial position was, because obviously whilst he was in prison he was not earning anything to speak of, whereas once he is released, it is possible that he is in a different position. In any event, there was an obligation upon him, as he was informed through his solicitors, to notify the Legal Services Commission. He did not do that.

4. He also failed to keep in contact with his solicitors as he ought to have done, and in the result they have come off the record. He has not attended court today. In fact, the point is an important one, and he clearly would not be capable in any event of arguing it without some legal assistance.

5. I am satisfied that his address has been given to the court and the court has notified him of the existence of this hearing today (I gather he is living in Sheffield at the moment). Accordingly, on the basis of his non-attendance and also because the point has become academic, the sensible course is for me now to dismiss this claim, and that I do.

6. As it happens, the point will be considered in another case in which I have given permission today. As it is obviously a point of some wider application and of some importance, it should be considered as soon as possible when the relevant evidence is in early next year.

7. There will be a liberty to the claimant to apply to the court within 21 days if he seeks to assert that he was not notified of the hearing today and wishes to be heard as to whether it should proceed. I do not encourage in the least any such application because it will do him no good at all to pursue this matter now. But just in case he was unaware of this hearing, he ought to have the right to apply to the court in such circumstances.