Prisoner wins appeal for governor to reconsider request for personal computer

The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) will now have to reconsider his request after a Court of Session judge ruled that “inadequate reasons” were given for the refusal.

Beggs, 53, who was sentenced to life imprisonment in 2001 with a punishment part of 20 years after being found guilty of the murder of 18-year-old Barry Wallace, challenged the decisions taken by prison officials acting on behalf of the Scottish Ministers to refuse his requests for a personal laptop, which he claimed needed for his various legal actions, both civil and criminal, and to access educational programmes.

Lord Malcolm heard that his requests in March 2014 and June 215 were refused on the basis of a policy set out in the Governors & Managers Action Notices (GMA).

The GMA of 1998 provided that in closed establishments a prisoner could not own a laptop, but the GMA of 1999 recognised that no allowance had been made for “exceptional cases”, thus it stated that approval could be given to a prisoner with “sufficiently compelling circumstances” to justify access to a personal computer if an assurance cold be given that “effective monitoring” could be employed.

Having failed to meet the “exceptional circumstances” criteria, the petitioner lodged an application for judicial review, arguing that the relevant policy documents showed that there was no reason in principle for refusing a prisoner permission to purchase his own laptop and related equipment – indeed there was a precedent in that a previous prisoner had been given permission.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that to grant his request would be a “reasonable and proportionate” response to his concerns regarding his legal papers, while refusal amounted to a “disproportionate interference” with his article 8 rights under the European Convention of Human Rights.

It was also argued that the prison laptop scheme was “inadequate”, as it lacked precision and certainty, the exceptional circumstances test was “too high a hurdle”, and there were “insufficient safeguards against arbitrary decision making”.

Lord Malcolm noted Beggs was involved in a “large number” of cases and had accumulated a correspondingly large number of papers, which were causing storage problems and a fire risk.

The judge further noted that the petitioner was only the second prisoner to make such a request, the other having been granted permission, but the petitioner had also offered to pay for the equipment, thus there would be “no drain” on Scottish SPS finances.

He said: “To all of this can be added the comment that the petitioner would appear to be recognised as unusual in respect of the number of legal proceedings pursued and the prolixity of his letter writing activities.

“If the view were to be that the above does not amount to a sufficiently compelling case in terms of the relevant policy, I would have sympathy with Mr Begg’s expectation of a more considered, detailed, and reasoned response than anything provided so far.

“In my opinion it is not sufficient simply to state that his case is neither exceptional nor compelling, and that he can create documents in manuscript and, for the rest, use the prison laptop protocol.”

He added that the relevant policy contemplated that there could be cases where security issues were satisfactorily addressed in respect of a personal laptop in use, and previously one prisoner passed the test.

“At a minimum,” he continued, “the petitioner should be entitled to an opportunity to respond to and seek to alleviate any such concerns specific to him.”

The judge therefore quashed the previous rejections of Beggs’ requests, meaning the applications were now outstanding and should be considered afresh.

In written opinion, Lord Malcolm said: “For the reasons given above, I am satisfied that relevant circumstances were not taken into account, and that inadequate reasons were provided for the refusal of the petitioner’s request. I shall therefore quash that decision.

“To avoid potential complications, I shall also quash the refusal in 2015, which is subject to similar criticisms. The practical result is that the requests of 2014 and 2015 are outstanding and should be considered anew.”

The judge added that it was not for him to decide on appropriate future procedure.

“However, he continued, “it may be helpful if I note that amongst the voluminous paperwork accompanying the petition I have found no record of any governor granting the petitioner a meeting to discuss his requests and the reasons for them.

“The new decision maker may wish to consider whether there would be merit in such a meeting, when, whatever else, security concerns could be addressed face-to-face.”