Punishment guidelines on dishing out extra days in jail for unruly inmates are not unlawful, an appeal court has ruled.
It’s the latest twist in a convoluted legal battle involving a convicted drug dealer who was given hundreds of extra days behind bars for breaking prison rules.
Christopher McCluskey, 37, was jailed in October 2013 for a total of 14 years 10 months’ custody, primarily for possession of class A drugs with intent to supply.
In May 2016 he was convicted of an affray inside the prison and sentenced to nine months’ custody consecutive to his existing sentences.
.jpeg?width=209&height=140&crop=209:145,smart&quality=75)
.jpg?width=209&height=140&crop=209:145,smart&quality=75)
He was due to be eligible for parole in April next year.
But between July 2018 and February last year his sentence was increased by a total of 676 additional days of custody for no fewer than 16 admitted breaches of prison rules.
Fifteen of these related to the smoking of banned substances and one concerned possession of a mobile phone.
These additional days were awarded by an independent adjudicator.
Mr McCluskey’s advocate, Paul Rodgers, pointed out that the 676 additional days were the equivalent of a court-imposed sentence of three years and 257 days.
Some 305 of the 676 days were quashed following a review of the independent adjudicator’s decision by the Department of Home Affairs.
And in February this year Deemster Andrew Corlett quashed the remaining 271 additional days in jail following a doleance claim.
The Deemster concluded the guidelines differ markedly from those in the UK and have ’no rational basis’.
But then the DHA and the independent adjudicators appealed, seeking the dismissal of Mr McCluskey’s doleance claim and the quashing of his additional days’ custody.
Following the February ruling, another independent adjudicator ordered the inmate to serve 179 additional days. This is subject to a fresh doleance claim.
The appeal court allowed the appeal in part, ruling the guidelines did not require Tynwald approval and are not invalid or otherwise ultra vires.
But in a judgment, it also ruled that 72 of the additional days’ custody imposed in February last year, and which had been quashed following the DHA’s review, were in breach of Mr McCluskey’s human rights.
The appeal court aired concerns that no legal aid has been granted since 2017 to any prisoner facing disciplinary charges before the adjudicator - and there is possibly no procedure for doing so.