Bringing Power to Particular Account - Peter Rajah and the Hull Board of Visitors (From Radical Issues in Criminology, P 25-39, 1980, Pat Carlen and Mike Collison, ed. - See NCJ-74506)

• NCJ Number: 74508
• Author(s): L Taylor
• Date Published: 1980
• Length: 15 pages
• Sale Source: Barnes and Noble College Bookstore
• Language: English
• Country: United Kingdom

Annotation

The course of the Rajah case, the role of the British National Council for civil liberties (NCCL) in the legal proceedings, and implications of the case for prisoners' right and civil liberties are outlined.

Abstract

After the Hull Prison riot of August 31 through September 2, 1976, 500 charges were brought against 185 of the 310 prisoners in the correctional facility. The prisoner Peter Rajah faced four charges. Adjudication of the case was conducted by the Board of Visitors, which was composed of two justices of the peace and one other person. The hearing lasted 15 minutes, and Rajah was sentenced to 390 days' loss of remission, 154 days' loss of privileges, 154 days' loss of earnings, and 154 days' exclusion from associated labor. With assistance from the NCCL, Rajah and five fellow prisoners subsequently attempted to obtain an order of certiorari against the Board of Visitors. It was argued that the prisoners had been denied the usual conditions of natural justice which accompany any adjudication involving determination of guilt and sentencing. Rajah claimed that he was held in solitary confinement before the hearing and was provided with no information about the case. The judges of the divisional court could not deny that the Board of Visitors was a court setting but stated that actions by disgruntled prisoners could interfere with prison discipline. The application for orders of certiorari was refused. The case was then heard in the court of appeal on October 3, 1978. Despite arguments of the Home Office that the Board of Visitors was a domestic tribunal for which rules of natural justice have no relevance, thus making a writ of certiorari inappropriate, the appeal court disagreed. While the judges' sentiments were on the side of the authorities, they ruled that prisoners could not be denied all constitutional rights. The order of certiorari was granted, the matter went back to the divisional court, and a total of 16 findings of guilt against six prisoners were eventually quashed. The NCCL faced special difficulties because of the Home Office's delay tactics and the refusal of the local legal aid committee to supply funds. Although personal injustices were righted because of the decision in appeal, prisons have not changed, and Boards of Visitors continue to mete out justice according to whim. Notes are supplied. For related articles, see NCJ 74506.