How has the court treated a writ petition alleging that an inmate was not given adequate notice of the alleged conspiracy to pervert the course of justice?

The trial court granted the writ petition "on the sole ground that petitioner was not afforded the process to which he was due because he was not given [47 Cal.App.4th 1694] adequate notice of the charges brought against him as to who, what, when, and where the petitioner's involvement in the conspiracy consisted of, as required by Wolff v. McDonnell (1974) 418 U.S. 539 [94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935]." (Italics added.) The court did not review the confidential information supplied to the hearing officer. ³

Both parties recognize that in a disciplinary hearing based on confidential material, an inmate has a due process right to be apprised of information which forms the basis of the charged rules violation. (Wolff v. McDonnell, supra, 418 U.S. at p. 564, 94 S.Ct. at pp. 2978-2979.) Respondent argued successfully below that the charging papers did not adequately apprise him of the essential details of the conspiracy in order that might prepare his defense.