The Supreme Court rules a smoking ban cannot be enforced in English prisons

The UK Supreme Court has ruled that a prohibition on smoking cannot be enforced in prisons in England and Wales.

You can find the judgment and summary here.

The issue was brought to the Supreme Court by a serving prisoner at HMP Wymott, Paul Black. He complained that his health problems were being exacerbated by passive smoking. The Court held that health regulations do not apply to Crown premises, which includes prisons.

In 2015, Black was successful in the High Court, which ruled that the ban must also be applied to state prisons and other Crown premises in England and Wales. The Government however appealed this decision, after concern that a smoking ban in prisons could cause discipline problems and risk the safety of staff and inmates.

In its decision, Lady Hale, President of the Supreme Court, expressed "considerable reluctance" in concluding that when the Health Act 2006 was passed (the Act which made provision for the "smoking ban"), Parliament did not mean the ban to extend it to government or Crown sites. This implies that the prohibition applies only to offices, enclosed areas, bars and other public spaces. She said:

“Had Parliament intended part 1 of chapter 1 of the 2006 Act to bind the Crown, nothing would have been easier than to insert such a provision... The report of the health committee [at the time] does indicate that parliament was alive to the question of whether the smoking ban would bind the Crown and aware of the case for further exemptions if the act were to do so... It might well be thought desirable, especially by and for civil servants and others working in or visiting government departments, if the smoking ban did bind the Crown... But the legislation is quite workable without doing so.”

At present, the Ministry of Justice has introduced a smoking ban in some prisons in England and Wales.

Whilst this judgment may appear to be a victory for prisoners who support smoking in prisons, it raises questions which stretch beyond the custodial establishment. The wider issue relates to government properties, including courts and JobCentres. The effect of this judgment seems to be that  individuals working or visiting government properties are not afforded the same protection enjoyed in non-government properties which are bound to enforce the ban.