Exceptional writ of habeas corpus granted by The Hon Mr Justice Mould in the High Court who commended both the solicitor and the advocate
We represented a client who was unlawfully detained at Feltham Young Offender Institution following sentencing at Harrow Crown Court.
Our client pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm, a bladed article, and a controlled drug. He received a sentence of 15 months. Due to time served on remand (337 days), he was entitled to immediate release under sections 240ZA and 244 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Despite clear entitlement to release, our client remained in custody beyond the lawful time frame. He was returned to Feltham Young Offender Institution after sentencing and detained overnight.
Timely legal action
Supervising Solicitor, Claire Dissington contacted Feltham's resettlement team and the Duty Governor to explain there was no legal basis for continued detention.
When staff refused release until the following day, Claire instructed counsel Kate O’Raghallaigh to apply to the duty judge in the High Court for a writ of habeas corpus. The High Court heard the application that evening and ordered the client’s release by noon the following day.
Court order enforced
The client was eventually released at 11:26am on 21 August 2024, almost 24 hours after sentencing. The High Court found his detention after 3:00pm on 20 August was unlawful.
Defendant admitted error
The Defendant admitted the Claimant’s return to custody was mistaken. The error was attributed to incorrect use of an automated sentence calculator based on an irrelevant scheme (SDS 40) which had not yet come into force. Staff failed to act on clear legal guidance provided by the Solicitor.
“As set out in the Affidavit, mistakes made by staff at HMP & YOI Feltham A on 20 August 2024 occurred - particularly around using an automated sentencing calculation applying the ’SDS 40’ scheme, which was not relevant or applicable in calculating the Claimant’s release date - which led to confusion about the Claimant’s release date, which led to his being held in detention until the morning of 21 August 2024. The Defendant accepts that the confusion which had arisen should have been resolved as a matter of urgency on the afternoon of 20 August 2024, and the Claimant should not have been held for another night; it is accepted that by the time the writ of habeas corpus was granted at 22:43, the Claimant's detention was unlawful. The Defendant accepts that the Claimant experienced a period of unlawful detention as a result, and offers sincere apologies to the Claimant that he experienced this period of unlawful detention”.
Exemplary advocacy praised by High Court
Ms Dissington had explained clearly and correctly to the Defendant’s staff during the afternoon of 20 August 2024 that they were confused as to the Claimant’s release date, that the SDS 40 scheme was not relevant and did not apply to his situation and that having already served half of his sentence, the Claimant must now be released.
The High Court praised the swift and professional action of Claire and Kate stating: ‘I conclude by acknowledging the exemplary actions of both Ms Dissington and Ms O’Raghallaigh in vindicating their client’s fundamental rights and pursuing this application on his behalf. I echo the observations made by this court at [38] of Niagui and [26] of Kim, which are as merited here as they were in those cases.’ Their dedication ensured the client’s fundamental rights were upheld.
The Defendant accepted fault, apologised, and committed to improving procedures to prevent repeat unlawful detentions.
Our client was represented by Supervising Solicitor Claire Dissington, who instructed Kate O’Raghallaigh of Doughty Street Chambers.
