The Howard League for Penal Reform in conjunction with the Association of Prison Lawyers
Roundtable on Segregation
Thursday 11th September 2014 at
Matrix Chambers, Griffin Building, Gray’s Inn, London. WC1R 5LN
5:30pm – 7pm 1.5 CPD points Refreshments will be provided
In February 2015 the Supreme Court will hear an appeal by two prisoners who were each held in segregation for approximately 6 months (R (On The Application of Kamel Bourgass and Tanvir Hussain) – v -the Secretary of State for Justice).
Practitioners are invited to attend a round table, CPD accredited, discussion on their experiences of working with segregated clients. The discussion will begin with a short presentation on the key legal issues in Bourgass and Hussain led by their legal team, Daniel Guedalla of Birnberg Peirce solicitors and Dan Squires of Matrix Chambers. This will be followed by a short summary on how to assist clients who have been segregated in the face of funding cuts from Laura Janes of the Howard League for Penal Reform.
The discussion may well be used to inform submissions made before the Supreme Court next year as it is anticipated that practitioners’ experiences on their clients’ experiences will provide a valuable insight into the reality of segregation for prisoners.
This event is free but spaces are limited.
Please RSVP to firstname.lastname@example.org to reserve your space.
If you reserve a place but subsequently cannot attend please alert us well in advance so that your place can be reallocated.
About Bourgass and Hussain
They were each detained alone in a cell for 23 hours a day and allowed to exercise for no more than an hour a day alone in a cage. The Court of Appeal held that, as the law currently stands, the prison authorities responsible for their segregation had no obligation, either pursuant to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘Article 6’) or at common law, to act fairly.
The Appellants thus had no right to have the decision to segregate them, or to continue to hold them in segregation for so long a period, made by an independent and impartial tribunal, and they had no right to be given sufficiently detailed information regarding the reasons to enable them to make meaningful representations to the prison authorities.