Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Prisons - From: 2000 To: 2000

This page lists 16 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Regina (Burgess) v Home Secretary [2000] Prison Law Reports 257
2000

Rose LJ
Prisons, Human Rights
The applicant challenged the refusal to move him to open conditions within the prison system. Held: "Article 5(4) does not . . preclude the Secretary of State from taking a different view than the Discretionary Life Panel of the Parole Board as to whether or not the applicant should be moved to open conditions."
European Convention on Human Rights 5.4
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Regina v Home Secretary ex parte Gunn [2000] Prison Law Reports 62
2000
CA
Buxton LJ
Prisons, Human Rights
A challenge under article 5 to decisions about a prisoner's treatment were misconceived in the context of the Secretary of State’s refusal to transfer a prisoner to open conditions with a view to improving his prospects of release: "[Article 5(4)] is not to do with how persons are treated while they were detained or where they are placed in the prison system. Other parts of the Convention, none of which are suggested to have been infringed in this case, deal with those matters. That being so, there is no obvious way in which Article 5 has any connection with the decision which is at the moment complained of as to whether this man should in be enclosed or open conditions."
European Convention on Human Rights 5
1 Citers


 
Regina v Parole Board and others ex parte Oyston Unreported, 1 March 2000
1 Mar 2000
CA
Lord Bingham of Cornhill LCJ
Prisons
Lord Bingham set out the difficulties faced by the Parole Board when dealing with prisoners who maintained their denials of guilt: "Convicted prisoners who persistently deny commission of the offence or offences of which they have been convicted present the Parole Board with potentially very difficult decisions. Such prisoners will probably not express contrition or remorse or sympathy for any victim. They will probably not engage in programmes designed to address the causes of their offending behaviour. Since they do not admit having offended they will only undertake not to do in the future what they do not accept having done in the past. Where there is no admission of guilt, it may be feared that a prisoner will lack any motivation to obey the law in future. Even in such cases, however, the task of the Parole Board is the same as in any other case: to assess the risk that the particular prisoner if released on parole, will offend again. In making this assessment the Parole Board must assume the correctness of any conviction. It can give no credence to the prisoner's denial. Such denial will always be a factor and may be a very significant factor in the Board's assessment of risk, but it will only be one factor and must be considered in the light of all other relevant factors. In almost any case the Board would be quite wrong to treat the prisoner's denial as irrelevant, but also quite wrong to treat a prisoner's denial as necessarily conclusive against the grant of parole."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another, Ex Parte Willis Times, 22 March 2000; Gazette, 09 March 2000
9 Mar 2000
QBD

Criminal Sentencing, Prisons
A prisoner having been sentenced to serve less than four years applied for consideration for early release under an electronic tagging home detention scheme. He was refused because he would have to register on release with the Police as a sex offender, and such individuals were subject to special rules set by the Home Secretary. The applicant had not been allowed to see the materials upon which the decision had been made. He should be allowed to see the material upon which the decision was based only if it went against the prisoner's assertion of such exceptional circumstances. Such prisoners posed a special risk, and the requirement for exceptional circumstances was not unlawful or irrational.
Criminal Justice Act 1991 34A 37A - Sex Offenders Act 1997

 
Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another, Ex Parte Allen Times, 21 March 2000; Gazette, 06 April 2000
10 Mar 2000
CA

Prisons
No right arose in favour of a prisoner to see the document upon which a decision to refuse him early release under a home detention and curfew scheme had been made, nor to make representations before completion of the assessment. No procedural unfairness had then arisen. He had a right to appeal, and that hearing would take place on a de novo basis, with the prisoner then having enhanced right of access and to make representations. The scheme was a non-statutory scheme where it was open to the Home Secretary to lay out the rules.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Salman v Turkey 21986/93; [2000] 34 EHRR 425; [2000] ECHR 357
27 Jun 2000
ECHR

Human Rights, Prisons
Where someone dies or is injured whilst in custody the burden is on the state to provide a "satisfactory and convincing explanation" of what has happened: "Persons in custody are in a vulnerable position and the authorities are under a duty to protect them. Consequently, where an individual is taken into police custody in good health and is found to be injured on release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused. The obligation on the authorities to account for the treatment of an individual in custody is particularly stringent where that individual dies . . Where the events in issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, as in the case of persons within their control in custody, strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of injuries and death occurring during such detention. Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation."
European Convention on Human Rights 2(1)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Andrew Russell v Regina, The Secretary of State For The Home Department, The Governor Of HMP Frankland, The Governor Of HMP Full Sutton Times, 01 August 2000; Gazette, 03 August 2000; [2000] EWHC Admin 365
10 Jul 2000
Admn

Torts - Other, Prisons
A prison governor has power to order prisoners under his control, as to the conditions and circumstances under which they should eat and live generally. Nevertheless he could not arbitrarily withdraw the provision of food, however unco-operative and disruptive a prisoner became. A prisoner on a dirty protest must be fed. Issues about the prisoner's behaviour must be dealt with under the disciplinary procedures.
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Governor of Her Majesty's Prison Brockhill ex parte Evans (No 2); HL 27-Jul-2000 - Times, 02 August 2000; Gazette, 17 August 2000; [2000] 3 WLR 843; [2001] 2 AC 19; [2000] UKHL 48; [2000] 4 All ER 15; [2000] UKHRR 836
 
Regina and Secretary of State for Home Department v Gavin Mellor [2000] EWHC Admin 385
31 Jul 2000
Admn

Prisons, Family, Human Rights, Health

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Petition of William Varey for Judicial Review of A Decision of the Scottish Ministers To Revoke her Licence and Recall Him To Prison
11 Aug 2000
SCS
Lady Paton
Scotland, Prisons

[ ScotC ]

 
 Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Others, Ex Parte Russell; QBD 31-Aug-2000 - Times, 31 August 2000
 
Oldham v The United Kingdom Times, 24 October 2000; 36273/97; [2000] ECHR 432; [2000] ECHR 433
26 Sep 2000
ECHR

Human Rights, Prisons
Where a parole board took two years to consider the applicant's parole, this was unreasonable, and a breach of the Article 5.4 requirement to deal with such matters speedily. Accordingly the continued detention of the applicant became unlawful. The provisions apply not only to original proceedings, but also to statutory automatic reviews of detention. No standard time can be set down, because the situations of detention and of the prisoners varies. The automatic two year period left the applicant with no opportunity to seek an earlier review of detention. The Court awarded damages of £1000 for a breach of Article 5(4) but said: 'the court considers that the applicant must have suffered feelings of frustration, uncertainty and anxiety flowing from the delay in review which cannot be compensated solely by the finding of violation'.
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-4; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
European Convention on Hman Rights 5-4
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Touroude v France 35502/97
3 Oct 2000
ECHR

Human Rights, Prisons
A single letter to a prisoner had been wrongfully opened by mistake. Held: A distinction was drawn from a case where, by reason of their repetition, incidents had revealed a malfunctioning of the mail service within the prison interfering with the right to respect for correspondence within article 8
European Convention on Human Rights 8
1 Citers


 
The Home Office v Peter Maurice Burgess Times, 14 November 2000; Gazette, 07 December 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 279
26 Oct 2000
CA

Criminal Sentencing, Torts - Other, Prisons
Time spent in custody during a trial was not a 'relevant period' for the reduction of his sentence under the Act. An action for damages for false imprisonment, the claimant having been ordered to surrender to the court each day one hour before his trial, and to remain there during the days events, was bound to fail. The defendant had been released on bail with conditions about attendance during the trial. The times stated included times when the court was not sitting, and it was argued that they constituted relevant time. They did not. The order was a sensible way of maintaining good order in the trial by ensuring the defendant had no contact with witnesses.
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Parole Board [2000] EWHC Admin 414
7 Nov 2000
Admn

Prisons

[ Bailii ]
 
Tanribilir -c- Turquie 21422/93; [2000] ECHR 603; [2000] ECHR 612
16 Nov 2000
ECHR

Human Rights, Prisons
The Court observed that, by its very nature, any deprivation of physical liberty carries with it a risk of suicide, against which the authorities must take general precautions.
European Convention on Human Rights
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.