The UK Supreme Court has ruled in a landmark case that the lack of approved premises (APs), formerly known as probation or bail hostels, constitutes unlawful sex discrimination against women.
The issue arose in the context of a long-standing concern that the UK prison system was “largely designed by men for men” and that women have been marginalised within it. The applicant, a woman from London, was convicted of murder and sentenced to a mandatory life sentence in 2004. In 2015, the Parole Board directed her release with the condition that she relocate to Bedford and resettle in Milton Keynes, as there were no APs for women in London. The applicant claimed that the current provision of APs amounted to unlawful sex discrimination, and that such discrimination could not be justified. According to the applicant the provisions were contrary to the Equality Act 2010 and her Article 8 and 14 rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. While there are ninety-four APs for men across England and Wales, there are only six for women in Bedford, Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, Preston and Reading. None of the APS are in London or Wales. The applicant alleged that the severe lack of APs for women in UK had a detrimental impact on women, in the sense that women’s family members have to travel further than men’s family members, where women are released on license. It was also noted that the APs are now all single sex establishment.
The applicant’s claim was rejected by the High Court and Court of Appeal, both of which found no discrimination, either direct or indirect. Having considered that the Ministry of Justice had never properly addressed the problem of providing sufficient and suitable APs for women and its possible impact, the Supreme Court found the provision of APs in the current prison system unlawfully discriminatory. According to Judge Lady Hale “being required to live in an AP a long way from home was a ‘detriment’”.
Lady Hale found that the provision of APs constitutes direct discrimination against women which is unlawful unless justified, and that the Secretary of State had yet to show such justification, such as cost saving. The Court concluded that individual women who are less favourably treated as a result of the provision of Aps may bring sex discrimination claims but it will be open to the Secretary of State to resist such claims on the ground that the provision is justified under the Equality Act.
Click here for the Supreme Court judgement in R (on the application of Col) v Secretary for Justice.
Click here for summary judgement