A life prisoner did not have the right to be tried by an independent adjudicator rather than by a prison governor for offences contrary to the Prison Rules 1999 where in the circumstances there were no consequences sufficiently serious to trigger the third of the criteria in Engel v The Netherlands (1979-80) 1 EHRR 647, and the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Art.6 was not engaged.
Proceedings before an adjudicator, where a prisoner had been convicted of an offence of failing to provide a urine sample, were unfair in circumstances where the adjudicator had been misled as to the fact of his own prior direction for disclosure and where a witness had been said to be unavailable when he was not.
The general rule that no disciplinary hearing under the Prison Rules 1999 should be heard in public was not contrary to European Convention on Human Rights 1950, Art.6(1) as that right was not absolute and there was a distinction between disciplinary proceedings against convicted prisoners and ordinary proceedings.
Where the Court of Appeal had quashed an order recommending deportation, the Home Secretary was obliged, when exercising his separate jurisdiction under s.3(5)(a) Immigration Act 1971, to consider the prior reasoning of the Court of Appeal and explain, however shortly, what he made of it. If he disagreed with it, he had to explain, however shortly, why he disagreed with it.