LAW

Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Tarrant & Another; R v Wormwood Scrubs Prison Board of Visitors ex p Anderson & Others (1985)
Case Summary: This case concerns prisoners (Tarrant, Anderson, et al.) facing serious disciplinary charges within prison. They were denied legal representation at the Prison Boards of Visitors hearings, despite potentially having this right in a criminal court. The case challenged the legality of this denial.
Key Issue: Does a prisoner have a right to legal representation at a prison disciplinary hearing? And if not a right, should a discretion to allow it exist and how should it be exercised?
Court's Decision:
  • No automatic right: The court confirmed (following Fraser v Mudge) that prisoners have no inherent right to legal representation at prison disciplinary hearings.
  • Discretion exists: However, the court held that Prison Boards of Visitors possess a discretion to grant legal representation. The failure to consider exercising this discretion was the key legal flaw.
Factors to Consider When Exercising Discretion (The "Tarrant Factors"): When deciding whether to allow legal representation, Prison Boards must consider these factors:
  1. Seriousness of Charge & Potential Penalty: The graver the charge and potential punishment, the stronger the argument for legal representation.
  2. Points of Law: If complex legal issues are likely to arise, legal representation becomes more necessary.
  3. Prisoner's Capacity: The prisoner's intellectual and educational capabilities to present their defense. A lack of capacity strengthens the argument for representation.
  4. Witness Contact: Difficulties in contacting witnesses to support their case.
  5. Speed of Adjudication: The need for a timely decision. While fairness is paramount, undue delay due to legal representation shouldn't be ignored.
  6. Fairness: Ensuring fairness between prisoners and between prisoners and prison officers. This includes avoiding potential bias.
Key Takeaway: While there's no automatic right to legal representation at prison disciplinary hearings, the Prison Board must actively consider the six factors above before deciding to deny representation. The failure to do so constitutes a substantial infringement of the prisoner's rights.
Applicability: While the case specifically concerns prison disciplinary hearings, the six factors ("Tarrant factors") can be applied, mutatis mutandis (with necessary changes), to similar situations where discretion to allow representation is involved. This means the principles may have wider application beyond the prison context.
Study Questions:
  1. What is the difference between a right and a discretion in legal terms?
  2. Explain each of the six Tarrant factors in detail and provide an example for each.
  3. Why is the failure to consider the discretion as significant as the decision itself?
  4. How might the Tarrant factors be applied to a disciplinary hearing in a different context (e.g., a university disciplinary committee)?
  5. What is the significance of the mutatis mutandis clause?
This study guide provides a structured overview of the case, emphasizing key principles and offering study questions to aid comprehension and retention. Remember to consult the full case text for a more complete understanding.


Picture
0 Comments

Author

Learn the fact about law