R (Munday) v SSJ (2009) EWHC 3638 (Admin): Difference between revisions
m (Text replacement - "{{bailii|" to "{{#bailii:") |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
''The MoJ's decision to recall the claimant, although contrary to the RMO's advice, was not Wednesbury unreasonable or otherwise flawed on conventional public law grounds: the disagreement was not on medical grounds but on whether, given the history of arson and recent disengagement, a mere allegation of and arrest for arson was sufficient justification for recall.'' | ''The MoJ's decision to recall the claimant, although contrary to the RMO's advice, was not Wednesbury unreasonable or otherwise flawed on conventional public law grounds: the disagreement was not on medical grounds but on whether, given the history of arson and recent disengagement, a mere allegation of and arrest for arson was sufficient justification for recall.'' | ||
==Citation== | |||
[2009] MHLR 401 | |||
==External link== | ==External link== | ||
| Line 5: | Line 8: | ||
[[Category:Ministry of Justice]] | [[Category:Ministry of Justice cases]] | ||
[[Category:Brief summary]] | [[Category:Brief summary]] | ||
[[Category:No transcript]] | [[Category:No transcript]] | ||
[[Category:2009 cases]] | [[Category:2009 cases]] | ||
[[Category:Judgment available offline]] | |||
Latest revision as of 22:23, 25 April 2021
The MoJ's decision to recall the claimant, although contrary to the RMO's advice, was not Wednesbury unreasonable or otherwise flawed on conventional public law grounds: the disagreement was not on medical grounds but on whether, given the history of arson and recent disengagement, a mere allegation of and arrest for arson was sufficient justification for recall.
Citation
[2009] MHLR 401
External link
Possible Bailii link (not there when checked last night, but might have appeared since)
The following categories (in blue boxes) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: