England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
(MR JUSTICE OUSELEY)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London WC2 Thursday, 8th November 2001

Thursday, 8th November 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE HENRY: Dr Saxena renews his appeals from the order of Ouseley J, in which he dismissed the applicant's renewed application for judicial review, an application on the paper already having been dismissed.

2. The decision complained of is the decision not to release Dr Saxena on home detention curfew at the point when he became eligible for it in early January 2001. In fact, after lodging the papers in the judicial review proceedings he was released from prison, having completed half of his sentence on 2nd March 2001. As a result of that there was no remedy that could be granted to the applicant because what the judicial review sought in relation to his release had been achieved by the time the proceedings came to be heard, so the judge found that the matter was academic in that sense.
3. Dr Saxena seeks to broaden that by saying that his detention in prison after the date of his first eligibility for home detention curfew was unlawful because he should have been released.
4. The decision to release someone lawfully from sentence, as this applicant had been, lies with the Home Detention Curfew Board. It is they who are entrusted with the decision. The judge had before him the report from that board and said this of it in his judgment:

"The comments from the Home Detention Curfew Board indicate that there was a likelihood of his breaching curfew and a risk of re-offending. Dr Saxena has taken vigorous and voluble objection to the basis upon which the Home Detention Curfew Board reached that decision. He says that in terms of risk, it was agreed that he would be a low risk to the public. He contended that they had no basis upon which to find that his home address was unsuitable; but they did not find his home address was unsuitable; they in fact found it to be suitable. Dr Saxena has misread the handwriting. He complains that their concern about his mental state was one which was based upon insufficient expertise. I have to say that the Board was plainly entitled to come to the conclusion and no great expertise would have been required to reach the conclusion that there was a ground for concern, and indeed concern as to whether he would co-operate with the terms of his licence."

5. It is plain from the judge's summary of the material before the Home Detention Curfew Board and their comments that that body was entitled in law to come to the conclusion that they did for the reasons they set out.
6. It is clear to me that the question of home detention curfew was carefully considered and the decision that they arrived at is not one that can arguably be challenged by judicial review. Therefore, for those reasons, permission to appeal must be refused.
7. Thank you for your help.
Order: Permission to appeal refused.