“Hi Annabel, I hope you are well. Mr Ellis has asked me to ask you if you could recommend any seminal books on the following – WAQF – solar powered furnace (small scale) – aero forestry-halophytic plants/crops – guide to building your own blockchain – latest i.s.o standard for management”.(Emphasis added.) Sept 21 and Dec 21 Pre-action protocol letter sent by Claimant’s representatives – listing numerous difficulties over time and raising the loan payment point raised in this case. Letter answered by the Defendants19 January 2022 (no judicial review issued). 24 Jan 22 Dr de Frece, Programme Director of the Claimant’s degree, writes to Nick Parkinson indicating the various problems for the Claimant, including destruction of materials sent to the prison by SOAS, lack of books and IT issues etc. 28 Jan 22 Claimant’s Chromebook removed because an allegedly unauthorised document was found on it regarding an Islamic charity, WAQF – treated as a removal of privileges issue by HMP Hull, formal complaint launched the same day by the Claimant. The Claimant’s Learning Services Manager (“LSM”) telephoned his tutor at SOAS and explained his concerns over the phone, reading out passages of the material. Ms Anderson (giving the Defendants’ evidence) says the LSM was told that whilst they knew the Claimant had mentioned WAQF previously, he was not aware of this work and did not see it as part of the Claimant’s then current module. The LSM then had a conversation with the Claimant, during which he concluded that the Claimant could not clearly explain the intended purpose of the material for his current studies, and made “ambiguous claims about the materials potentially being used for further studies. He was not able to explain how the materials were being used for his master’s degree.”
“Mr Ellis was provided with a Chromebook device to aid his university studies. Whilst carrying out checks on Mr Ellis’s written material before printing or writing by Mr Ellis that is not related to his degree has been found. The writing relates to an Islamic charitable organisation and is not in line with his degree subject or a part of any assignment, this has been confirmed by his university tutor. This is a direct breach of the learners compact and has resulted in the removal of the Chromebook device from Mr Ellis. SO [Security Officer]Atkin has authorised a ban of any further use of a Chromebook or similar device due to improper use until further investigation has been carried out.” 28 Jan 22-6 Apr 22 Period of no access to the virtual campus computer (known as the “VC2”) system in the Education Department for the Claimant. 8 Feb 22 Claimant’s complaint of 28 Jan rejected by Jamie Smith, the LSM, in the following terms: “The transparent and open enquiry into your complaint was conducted by Jamie Smith Learning and Skills Manager. It involved investigations into coracle Chromebook device compact agreement breaches, discussions with Annabel de Phrace (sic) (your university lecturer) and discussions with security department. Your university lecturer states that although you have mentioned the WAQF in the past, she was not aware of this piece of work being conducted and was not expecting to receive the work in question. Furthermore, there was not one reference to the subject matter of your degree. It was clearly explained to yourself and stated with in the compact agreement that you singed (sic) and agreed to, that the device must not be used for anything other than completing distance learning work. This includes but is not limited to, writing legal or personal letters and materials. It was clearly explained and is stipulated in the compact that this would result in an incentive level warning and removal of the device. We understand that you are studying a research led degree. However, on this occasion there has been a breach of the compact by using the chrome book to create written material that is not a direct part of your degree. Although it may be in line with you (sic) subject area, the writing in question was not directly linked to your current degree module. Therefore, you have been banned from using a chrome device not because of the content written but because you have used the device to write unauthorised materials which is a direct breach of contract.” 14 Feb 22 Claimant’s books and notes and course papers taken from his cell after a security searchtriggered by materials found on the Chromebook. 8. 15 Feb 22 Anthea Walker, Education Manager at HMP Hull, rejects Claimant’s complaint in the following terms (with similar “transparent and open enquiry” introduction and reference to the agreement governing use of a Chromebook signed by the Claimant and the responses of Jamie Smith): “A review of the compact agreement signed by yourself and the documents you produced using the Coracle Chromebook. I also spoke with Officer Atkin in the Security department at HMP Hull. Having carefully considered all aspects of your complaint on behalf of HMPPS and having reviewed this issue as above, I have been unable to uphold your complaint for the following reasons: Through my investigations and the aforementioned review of the compact, complete response from Jamie Smith and the documentation you produced on the coracle Chromebook it is evident that the documentation you produced is not in relation to your studies and you were in breach of the agreement. Your complaint has been concluded by the decision above which means the outcome will be: your access to ICT has been removed as you are no longer in a trusted position to have ICT access as agreed with Officer Atkin from the Security Department at HMP Hull. The IEP warning will remain for the aforementioned reasons.”
“Finally, I would like to confirm the material written by Fajr on Waqf (which was not sent to me) was part of his dissertation. Whilst not immediately central to the main piece of work, he was using the work as an example of how communities may go about gaining funding and personnel for sustainable projects. His dissertation is on creating sustainable desert communities through the use of a system of multiple green technologies and community management. I believe it was meant to be something he could include in the appendix. I hope this clarifies the matter.”
“The tutor also confirmed that the WAQF material was part of the Claimant’s dissertation. The tutor’s comments were considered by the education and security departments. There was concern that the tutor had contradicted her previous assertion that she was not aware of the work and that it was not part of the Claimant’s current module, shortly after having spoken to the Claimant. Furthermore, the tutor had not seen the material in question. There was concern that as the tutor had no prior experience working with prisoners, she may have been unduly influenced by the Claimant. It was considered that the Claimant has a history of subversive behaviour and therefore he may operate in a manipulative manner. Therefore, it was decided by the education and security departments that there was no basis for revisiting the decision – the Claimant had breached the compact as the material was deemed to be for his ‘own business’ and not related to his current master’s degree.”
“…because of security protocols, it was necessary to temporarily remove the documents found in the cell search so we could check that the content of your work did not go against prison compacts or protocols.”
“The paperwork taken has been analysed and it has been confirmed that the subject in your dissertation is a subject that does not go against prison guidelines, therefore I have arranged for the paperwork taken to be returned to you and I have also contacted the education department with regards you been allowed [sic] to be put back on your training course.”
“(1) Every prisoner able to profit from the education facilities provided at a prison shall be encouraged to do so. (2) Educational classes shall be arranged at every prison and, subject to any directions of the Secretary of State, reasonable facilities shall be afforded to prisoners who wish to do so to improve their education by training by distance learning, private study and recreational classes, in their spare time.”
“An applicant whom the Secretary of State would consider to be an eligible prisoner may apply for a postgraduate master’s degree loan to cover the whole or part of the fees of the designated course (but not towards other costs), but such postgraduate master’s degree loan cannot be more than£11,836 .”
“In the case of an eligible prisoner, the Secretary of State must pay the postgraduate master’s degree loan for which an eligible prisoner qualifies to the institution to which the eligible prisoner is liable to make payment for the fees or to such third party that the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purpose of ensuring the payment of fees to the relevant institution.”
“The Secretary of State must not pay the whole or part of the postgraduate master’s degree loan until the Secretary of State has received from the academic authority confirmation (in such form as may be required by the Secretary of State) of the student’s attendance on the course.”
“16.6 Access to the Internet by Prisoners The basic principle that applies to all forms of communication – preventing the transfer of information that might aid crime, threaten prison security or aid escape from custody and the protection of victims must be applied with regards to Internet access for prisoners and supervised individuals in the community. 16.7 Access to Internet facilities may allow prisoners or supervised individuals in the community to abuse [or harass] victims either through direct, electronic communication or by indirect proxy contact outside the prison and these considerations must be weighed against any perceived advantages. 16.8 The risk exists that prisoners could use the Internet to commit, prepare for or encourage crime whilst in custody. Additionally, they could access material that might endanger the security of the prison e.g., access to bomb-making techniques. 16.9 The accessibility of learning materials by prisoners in custody must be balanced against security considerations. Access to the Internet will only be granted following a thorough risk assessment on a case-by-case basis of the system, hardware, software and connectivity. Prisoners access to IT whilst in custody is subject to individual assessment as per the National Security Framework and advice on appropriate access controls can be obtained from security group, the IPA team. 16.10 Prisoners must not be allowed uncontrolled access to the Internet and/or to a computer or IT system whilst in custody that has software installed enabling Internet connectivity without seeking approval from security group, the IPA team and the completion of a thorough risk assessment. 16.11 All IT systems providing internet access for prisoners must be risk assessed by the MOJ Technology IA prior to prisoner access being granted. 16.12 All prisoners must be subject to an individual risk assessment before having access to IT and or electronic storage devices of any kind. 16.13 All IT and electronic storages devices for prisoners use whilst in custody must be subject to an MOJ Technology IA assessment. 16.14 All prisoners must sign a compact whilst in custody detailing the acceptable use requirements of the device and or service.” (Emphasis added.)
“[t]he Chromebook is to be used for distance learning courses/CV creation/Shannon Trust Mentoring & Learning and must not be used for any legal work or in association with any business that you may have”
“Higher education in prisons is primarily geared towards prisoners studying OU courses. The vast majority of prisoners across the prison estate, studying undergraduate or postgraduate degrees, undertake an OU course. The OU tailor-makes its curriculum, creates bespoke study packs and offers personalised support for prisoners. The MoJ is a partner of the OU and worked with the OU to create a ‘Virtual Campus’ (‘VC’), a computer system that allows students to access their learning materials in digital form whilst maintaining security standards. Further, the MoJ provides grant funding to the OU. For April 2020 to March 2023, a grant of£2,505,000 is in place. The purpose of the grant is to help enable prisoners to access higher education, by helping to cover costs related to the provision of learning materials (the OU produce bespoke textbooks and associated workbooks), tutor support, administration and advice, and other costs that arise by virtue of the student being located in prison. I note that the MoJ also has a memorandum of understanding place with the OU. In light of the above, prisoners are encouraged to study higher education courses through the OU whose courses are designed so that prisoners receive all the materials they need, and do not need to seek out additional resources. It is open to prisoners to study through other universities and course providers, as the Claimant has done. However, prisoners may naturally encounter some practical difficulties in pursuing these courses, as such courses are not designed to be studied by prisoners. It is ultimately a decision for a prison’s governor as to whether a prisoner may study a particular course.”
“The Claimant is able to attend nine sessions per week at HMP Hull’s education department. Currently, the education department runs five morning sessions per week (8.30-11.30) and four afternoon sessions per week (13.30-16.30). The Claimant attends the morning sessions but was also recently added to the afternoon sessions – so that he has access to 27 hours a week of study in the education department – which goes significantly beyond the status quo, and beyond what prisoners studying on an OU course or other forms of distance learning are afforded. The education department is fitted with VC computers, allowing the Claimant access to IT throughout this period for his studies. The Claimant is able to save his work at the end of each session on to a shared drive that can also be accessed by education department staff, and he can also request that staff upload this work on to his VC account. There is no limit to how much work the Claimant can save or how long the documents he saves can be. He is able to use Microsoft Word and access the internet, subject to security restrictions.”
“Each prisoner is limited to having four books from the library at a time. However, the library does on occasion allow a prisoner to take out more books if they have a good track record – i.e., regularly returning books undamaged. In the Claimant’s case, the library at HMP Hull confirmed that it was fine for him to take out additional books...”
“Following discussions with both the Claimant and his tutor, this issue has now been resolved; the Claimant now makes his DLC aware prior to books and other course materials arriving, and the tutor now appropriately marks the materials.”
“New materials: Should the Claimant be given permission to rely upon the additional statement of facts in support of the grounds of claim, and adduce the Claimant’s witness statement and additional evidence?”
“118. This Court has also deprecated the trend towards what has become known as a “rolling” approach to judicial review, in which fresh decisions, which have arisen after the original challenge and sometimes even after the first instance judgment, are sought to be challenged by way of amendment: see Spahiu, paras. 60-63. Although, as Coulson LJ said, at para. 63, “there is no hard and fast rule”, he was right to say that it will usually be better for all parties if judicial review proceedings are not treated as “rolling” or “evolving”
“… that in order to determine when the grounds to make the claim first arose for the purposes ofCPR r 54.5 (1) it was necessary to identify what was sought to be judicially reviewed;…. , further, grounds for making a judicial review claim first arose when a person was affected by the application of a challenged policy or practice, regardless of whether the policy or practice was applied to the Claimant automatically or by the making of an individual decision.”
“19. The rationale behind this decision was to recognise that prisoners do not have living expenses in the same way as community students. The most obvious examples of living expenses are accommodation, utility bills and food, all of which are provided to prisoners by the State. Community students studying a master’s degree do not receive dedicated maintenance loans, and most need to find additional funding to cover their living costs, given that master’s fees are typically close to, or above, the maximum loan available to them. It was considered reasonable, therefore, to allow them access to the full loan to assist, in part, in meeting their living costs, should their fees be lower than the maximum loan amount.”
“As noted above, the right of access to pre-existing educational institutions falls within the scope of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. Any limitation on this right has, therefore, to be foreseeable, to pursue a legitimate aim and to be proportionate to that aim. Although Article 2 of Protocol No.1 does not impose a positive obligation to provide education in prison in all circumstances, where such a possibility is available it should not be subject to arbitrary and unreasonable restrictions (ibid., § 34).”
“(iv) I also recognise that student loans are a form of social benefit. As Lord Hughes explained in Tigere at [53] a considerable proportion of the loans are never re-paid and the scheme of loans is therefore properly to be considered as a form of subsidy. The executive has particular expertise and democratic responsibility for deciding how such benefits are to be distributed. The respect which must be accorded to their decisions is accordingly enlarged.”
“The writing relates to an Islamic charitable organisation and is not in line with his degree subject or a part of any assignment, this has been confirmed by his university tutor. This is a direct breach of the learners compact…”
“Your university lecturer states that although you have mentioned the WAQF in the past, she was not aware of this piece of work being conducted and was not expecting to receive the work in question. Furthermore, there was not one reference to the subject matter of your degree. It was clearly explained to yourself and stated with in the compact agreement that you singed (sic) and agreed to, that the device must not be used for anything other than completing distance learning work.”
“It is to be used for distance learning courses/CV creation/Shannon Trust Mentoring & Learning and must not be used for any legal work or in association with any business that you may have.”
“It is evident that the documentation you produced is not in relation to your studies and you were in breach of the agreement.”
“There was concern that the tutor had contradicted her previous assertion that she was not aware of the work and that it was not part of the Claimant’s current module, shortly after having spoken to the Claimant. Furthermore, the tutor had not seen the material in question. There was concern that as the tutor had no prior experience working with prisoners, she may have been unduly influenced by the Claimant. It was considered that the Claimant has a history of subversive behaviour and therefore he may operate in a manipulative manner. Therefore, it was decided by the education and security departments that there was no basis for revisiting the decision.” (Emphasis added.)
“... Mr Ellis’s university lecturer states that although he mentioned the Islamic Trust WAQF in the past, she was not aware of this piece of work beingconducted and was not expecting to receive the work in question. Furthermore, there was not one reference to the subject matter in his degree. I understand that Mr Ellis is studying a research led degree. However, on this occasion there has been a breach of the compact by using the chrome book to create written material that is not a direct part of his degree. Although it maybe in line with the subject area, the writing in question was not directly linked to the current degree module. Therefore, Mr Ellis has been excluded from using the chrome book device, not because of the content written, but because Mr Ellis used the device to write unauthorised materials which is a direct breach of compact. … It is deemed that the writing in question is not a part of his dissertation. The work was not meant for the university, and his lecturer was not aware that she would be receiving it.” (Emphasis added.)
“Firstly with reference to removal of a Chromebook from MR Ellis’s cell, I find the following. Mr Ellis’s university lecturer states that although he mentioned the Islamic Trust WAQF in the past, she was not aware of this piece of work being conducted and was not expecting to receive the work in question. Furthermore, there was not one reference to the subject matter in his degree.” (Emphasis added.)
“Mr Ellis was [?has] subsequently received an intelligence led search on the15 March 2022 and a number of items were removed from Mr Ellis’s cell for further investigation. The investigation has now concluded and no further action has been taken. The items will be returned to Mr Ellis. Mr Ellis may now resume Distance Learning sessions that entail using IT facilities. We will continue to support his Distance Learning provision were possible and access to education. It is always disappointing when a prisoner’s learning is disrupted for security investigations and I can assure you that all efforts are taken to keep this to a minimum, whilst balancing security related issues and risks to the public.”
“… the writing in question was not directly linked to your current degree module. Therefore, you have been banned from using a chrome device not because of the content written but because you have used the deviceto write unauthorised materials…” (Emphasis added.)
“This search was triggered by the materials found on the Claimant’s Chromebook. The purpose of this search was not to gather more information to consider further the LSM’s decision to remove the Chromebook. That decision had already been taken. This search was to investigate whether the Claimant had in his possession any materials that might be considered an abuse of data access, and therefore a security breach. The relevant NOMIS case notes entry dated14 February 2022 reads as follows: ‘At approx. 10:00 on14/02/2022 DST conducted an intelligence led cell search of cell I-1-24 occupied solely by A9911AA ELLIS. Full search was conducted at gymnasium by Officer [redacted] and [redacted] and body scan conducted at reception ¿ nil found. Ibad dog was used to initially search cell ¿ nil found. Cell search conducted by Officer [redacted] and [redacted], all captured on BWVC 504813, a quantity of paperwork was seized in relation to the intelligence received surrounding a chrome book. This will be passed on to prison prevent lead [redacted] who has been investigating these issues. Once the paperwork has been reviewed anything that is cleared will be returned to ELLIS as was explained to him once the search was complete, he is aware of what has been taken and is happy with the search and what we have done, he had no complaints to raise. IR, NOMIS and obs book updated, O1 aware.’” and “At approximately 08:45 on 15/03/22 J1-24 A9911AA ELLIS subject to Intel led cell search by DST. All HMPS guidelines and local searching strategy followed by search team, prisoner compliant throughout. Items seized include; P06417308 Assorted paperwork ¿ websites, business plans and social media. P06417310 emails from potential wife + pre marriage contract. Contained within are emails from KEITH ELLIS church street, Nuneaton, Warwickshire CV11 4AD listed on his contacts on NOMIS as his uncle but content is from ¿AISHA¿ asking about marriage details etc. P06417311 8x new scientist magazines with pages marked: Multiple bookmarks on viruses. 07/03/20 ¿ Online extremists 25/04/20 ¿ Weapons 31/10/20 ¿ Super bugs and gene weapons 0/01/21 ¿ Mind control 22/05/21 ¿ Mind hacking 04/07/20 ¿ Dominate and influence P06417313 Microbiology and infection book. P06417314 4x books on psychology and influence. BWVC 418694.” ‘At approx. 10:00 on14/02/2022 DST conducted an intelligence led cell search of cell I-1-24 occupied solely by A9911AA ELLIS. Full search was conducted at gymnasium by Officer [redacted] and [redacted] and body scan conducted at reception ¿ nil found. Ibad dog was used to initially search cell ¿ nil found. Cell search conducted by Officer [redacted] and [redacted], all captured on BWVC 504813, a quantity of paperwork was seized in relation to the intelligence received surrounding a chrome book. This will be passed on to prison prevent lead [redacted] who has been investigating these issues. Once the paperwork has been reviewed anything that is cleared will be returned to ELLIS as was explained to him once the search was complete, he is aware of what has been taken and is happy with the search and what we have done, he had no complaints to raise. IR, NOMIS and obs book updated, O1 aware.’”