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: 2002 To: 2002

This page lists 40 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
William Pate v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWHC 1018 (Admin)
2002
Admn
Turner J
Prisons
The court considered the prisoner's complaint that the respondent's policies on the re-classification of prisoners were unlawful in that they disallowed the prison governor from classifying him as Category B despite the fact that as a frail and elderly prisoner any escape threat did not exist. Held: Though it may be legitimate to have a policy aiming to make escape impossible for certain prisoners, it was not lawful to exclude the possibility that this objective could be achieved even in category B. Turner J said: "my judgment is that, the policy of making escape as near impossible as can be for prisoners who form the small group in which this claimant is found is not itself unlawful at least insofar as it excludes the exercise of discretion. This is on the basis that the aim of the policy is such as to preclude discretion at the stage when consideration is given to its formation. On the other hand, it is not a necessary incident of that policy that no consideration, as a matter of policy . . is given to the individual escape potential of prisoners within that group. The objective (aim) may be capable of being met with a lower categorisation in which event there is plainly scope, and I would hold duty, for the exercise of discretion."
1 Citers


 
Regina (Cavanagh) v Home Secretary [2002] Prison Law Reports 120
2002
Admn
Moses J
Prisons
There is nothing irrational in denying enhanced status and privileges to prisoners who refuse to undertake treatment courses. Held: "There is, to my mind, nothing unfair or inappropriate in requiring a sex offender, guilty of serious sexual offences as these claimants were, to attend an SOTP [Sex Offenders Training Programme] even if he denies he is guilty of those offences. It is a key purpose of imprisonment to encourage constructive behaviour by a prisoner and thereby reduce the risk of his reoffending and increase protection to the public. It is, therefore, fair and rational to encourage participation in a course which may reduce risk of reoffending by means of the schemes for providing an incentive to attend such a course and granting privileges to those who undertake such courses."
1 Citers


 
A B v The Netherlands 37328/97; [2002] ECHR 9
29 Jan 2002
ECHR

Human Rights, Prisons
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 8 in respect of control of correspondence with the Commission and with lawyer; No violation of Art. 8 in respect of other correspondence; Violation of Art. 13
1 Citers

[ Worldlii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Ponting) v Governor of HMP Whitemoor, Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWHC 215 (Admin )
22 Feb 2002
CA
Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Clarke, Lady Justice Arden
Prisons, Human Rights
The applicant appealed a refusal of permission to use a computer for preparation of materials for his litigation save under conditions imposed by the Prisons Service. He was dyslexic, and with a low IQ. He claimed that the conditions operated so as effectively to restrict his access to justice, and to interfere with his right for privacy for his correspondence. Held: A balance was to be found with good order and discipline, and security, and the prisoner's rights. Circumstances might exist where restrictions on the use of a computer would interfere with both rights, but in this case they did not save only the restriction on their use to overnight hours..
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Edwards v The United Kingdom; ECHR 14-Mar-2002 - Times, 01 April 2002; 46477/99; (2002) 35 EHRR 487; [2002] ECHR 303
 
Hirst v Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 10 April 2002; Gazette, 10 May 2002; [2002] EWHC 602 (Admin); [2002] 1 WLR 2929
22 Mar 2002
Admn
Mr Justice Elias
Prisons, Media, Human Rights
The applicant, a prisoner challenged the uniform ban on contact by prisoners with the media by telephone, arguing that it infringed his Article 10 rights. Held: Restricting telephone contact with the media was not part of imprisonment. A democratic society need not seek to prevent prisoners from expressing their views directly to the media about grievances or concerns they had about issues affecting them. The policy insofar as it was imposed universally was unlawful.
Prison Service Order 4400 6.10 - European Convention on Human Rights Art 10
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Dillon v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWHC 732 (Admin)
27 Mar 2002
Admn

Prisons

Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984 4
[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina (Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Regina (Middleton) v Coroner for West Somersetshire; CA 27-Mar-2002 - Times, 18 April 2002; Gazette, 10 May 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 390; [2003] QB 581
 
Williams v The Secretary of State for the Home Office Times, 01 May 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 498; [2002] 1 WLR 2264; [2002] 4 All ER 872
17 Apr 2002
CA
Lord Phillips Master of the Rolls, Judge LJ
Prisons, Human Rights
The applicant was a post-tariff discretionary life prisoner, applying for a change in his security classification. He sought disclosure of his security report which was denied by the respondent. He alleged a breach of his human rights. Held. The punitive part of the sentence was complete. The earlier panel had advised his reclassification from security risk A, but that had not been followed. He was required to demonstrate positive reasons for re-classification, but was not told what circumstances justified maintenance of his classification. The committee which considered his possible release served a different purpose to one which considered his classification. Full disclosure was ordered.
The Parole Board is concerned with assessing risk in the context of someone who is lawfully released and subject to continuing monitoring and control. Furthermore, there are incentives to behave, since in the event of non-compliance the licence is revocable.
European Convention on Human Rights Art 5
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
West Justin, Regina (on the Application Of) v Parole Board [2002] EWHC 769 (Admin)
26 Apr 2002
Admn
Mr Justice Turner
Prisons, Criminal Sentencing

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Stafford v The United Kingdom; ECHR 28-May-2002 - Times, 31 May 2002; 46295/99; ECHR 2--2-iv; [2002] 35 EHRR 1121; [2002] ECHR 466; [2002] ECHR 470; [2002] Crim LR 828; [2002] Po LR 181; [2002] 35 EHRR 32; 13 BHRC 260
 
Regina (Noorkoiv) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another Times, 31 May 2002; Gazette, 04 July 2002; [2002] 1 WLR 3284; [2002] EWCA Civ 770; [2002] ACD 66; [2002] 4 All ER 515; [2002] HRLR 36
30 May 2002
CA
Lord Woolf, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Simon Brown and Lord Justice Buxton
Human Rights, Prisons
The claimant was a prisoner. He became entitled to be considered for release on parole, but was not released because the Parole Board had not made a decision. Held: The system for consideration of the release of discretionary and life prisoners infringed the human rights of such prisoners, insofar as the consideration of their release delayed the release. The lack of resources was insufficient as an excuse. Delay was part of the board's scheme for consideration of life sentence prisoners. The hearing always took place after the end of the tariff period: cases were heard at the end of the next quarter.
Article 5(4) requires a review by the Board of whether the prisoner should continue to be detained once the tariff period has expired, and therefore requires a hearing at such a time that, whenever possible, those no longer considered dangerous can be released on or very shortly after the expiry date. "Article 5(1) is not relevant because the justification for the detention of a prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment (whether discretionary or automatic or mandatory) is that sentence and not the fixing of the tariff period." Although the required causal connection between the conviction and the deprivation of liberty might eventually come to be broken so as to give rise to a breach of Article 5(1), that would be so only very exceptionally and "mere delay in Article 5(4) proceedings, even after the tariff expiry date, would not . . break the causal link."
European Convention on Human Rights 5.1
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
William Faulkner v The United Kingdom 37471/97; [2002] ECHR 481
4 Jun 2002
ECHR

Human Rights, Prisons
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings
European Convention on Huma Rights 8
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Fehily and Others v Governor of Wandsworth Prison and Another Times, 18 July 2002; [2002] EWHC 1295 (Admin
19 Jun 2002
Admn
Lord Justice Rose and Mr Justice Gibbs
Criminal Practice, Prisons
The defendants had been sent direct for trial under the section, being charged with indictable only offences, but the prosecution had failed to serve the necessary evidence and documents within the time limit. No application was made by the prosecution to extend the time limit save by a letter which arrived to late to allow the defendants to apply. The defendants issued a writ of habeas corpus. Held: Nothing in the Act envisaged charges being dismissed for the prosecution's failure. The Act even envisaged a voluntary indictment being issued if charges were dismissed. A judge has the power to extend the time for service after the limit has expired and even though no application had been made by the prosecution within that limit.
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 51
1 Citers


 
B, Regina (On the Application of) v Ashworth Hospital Authority [2002] EWHC 1442 (Admin)
1 Jul 2002
Admn
Sir Richard Tucker
Prisons, Health
The cliamant, detained after conviction for manslaughter but in a mental hospital challenged his further confinement within a Personality Disorder Unit.
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina on the Application of Giles v Parole Board and Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 23 July 2002; Gazette, 12 September 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 951; [2003] 2 WLR 196
4 Jul 2002
CA
Lord Justice Kennedy, Lord Justice May and Lord Justice Tuckey
Criminal Sentencing, Prisons
The prisoner had been sentenced to a punitive term, and an additional protective term under the Act. After the parole board had decided that he could be released from the punitive part of the sentence, he obtained declaration that the board should also periodically review the protective part of the sentence. Held: The protective part of the sentence was fixed by the judge just because he had heard the evidence, and that part of a sentence was to be set and reviewed only by the judiciary.
Criminal Justice Act 1991 2(2)(b)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Ashworth Hospital Authority, Ex parte Munjaz (No 2) [2002] EWHC (Admin) 1521
5 Jul 2002
Admn
Sullivan J
Health, Human Rights, Health, Prisons, Human Rights
The court dismissed the claimant's complaint that the seclusion policies operated at Ashworth Special Hospital infringed his human rights. The Special Hospitals operated policies for seclusion which differed from the Code of Practice laid down under the Act. Held: The claim was dismissed. Any seclusion had been of such a short duration as not to give rise to an infringement of the patient's rights. A departure from the Code did not imply a necessary infringement, since the Code was for guidance only.
As to the alleged infringement of his article 3 and article 8 rights, the minimum level of severity required for Article 3 was not met and there was no breach of Article 8. It also found that the Code of Practice was merely guidance. The Court accepted evidence that the applicant had not remained in seclusion for longer than had been necessary, and that there was no evidence that more frequent reviews would have reduced the time spent in seclusion.
The applicant was detained at Ashworth secure mental hospital. He challenged the lawfulness of the policy implemented for secuded detentions. Held: The Code fell within (1)(b) but not (1)(a).
Mental Health Act 1983 47 49 - European Convention on Human Rights 3 8
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Ezeh and Connors v The United Kingdom Times, 30 July 2002; 39665/98; 40086/98; [2002] ECHR 590; [2003] ECHR 485; (2002) 35 EHRR 691; (2003) 39 EHRR 1; [2002] ECHR 595; (2002) 35 EHRR 28
15 Jul 2002
ECHR
J-P Costa, P and JJ W. Fuhrmann, L. Loucaides, Sir Nicolas Bratza, H. S. Greve, K. Traja and M. Ugrekhelidze Section Registrar S. Dolle
Prisons
The applicants were serving prisoners. They had been the subject of disciplinary proceedings in which they had been denied the right to representation. They claimed an infringement of their right to a fair trial. Held: Both proceedings had resulted in the extension of the respective prison sentences. The rules gave the governor discretion to allow representation, but no duty. The Convention required a defendant to be allowed legal representation in any criminal proceedings. Case law allowed exclusion of representation in adjudication proceedings, but these proceedings required representation. The procedure did infringe the prisoners' human rights.
European Convention on Human Rights 6(3)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Worldlii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Kalashnikov v Russia 47095/99; [2002] ECHR 591; [2002] ECHR 596; [2010] ECHR 567
15 Jul 2002
ECHR

Human Rights, Prisons
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 3; Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings
Some measure of control over prisoners’ contacts with the outside world is called for and is not of itself incompatible with the Convention.
European Convention on Human Rights 3 5-3 6-1
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Armstrong v The United Kingdom 48521/99
16 Jul 2002
ECHR

Human Rights, Prisons
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8; Violation of Art. 13; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient
Four Rule 39 letters had been opened over a 5 month period. Held: The prisoner could not claim to be a victim of a violation of article 8.
European Convention on Human Rights 8
1 Citers


 
Lenehan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWHC 1599 (Admin)
29 Jul 2002
Admn

Criminal Sentencing, Prisons

[ Bailii ]
 
Bloggs 61, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Unreported 31 July 2002
31 Jul 2002
Admn
Ousely J
Prisons, Police

1 Citers


 
DF v Chief Constable of Norfolk Police Secretary of State for Home Department [2002] EWHC 1738 (Admin)
15 Aug 2002
Admn
Crane J
Prisons
A prisoner serving a life sentence challenged the decision of the Prison Service to refuse to admit him to a witness protection unit and contended that the Norfolk Police had failed in their duty to provide appropriate information to the Prison Service. Held: The decision was quashed. The duty to protect the life of a prisoner against the risk of attacks by fellow prisoners involved different considerations from that owed to persons out in the community and, by inference, from that owed to a potentially suicidal prisoner.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
South West London and St George's v W [2002] EWHC 1770 (Admin)
18 Aug 2002
Admn
Crane J
Health, Prisons

Mental Health Act 1983 47
[ Bailii ]
 
Scott Davidson v The Scottish Ministers (No 2) [2002] ScotCS 256; 2003 SC 103
11 Sep 2002
IHCS
Lord Justice Clerk and Lord Kirkwood and Lord Philip
Scotland, Prisons, Human Rights

European Convention on Human Rights
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ ScotC ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Van Hoogstraten) v Governor of HM Prison Belmarsh Gazette, 31 October 2002; Times, 05 November 2002
23 Sep 2002
QBD
Jackson J
Prisons, Legal Professions, European, Human Rights
The prisoner was awaiting sentence. He had dismissed his legal team, and wanted to appoint Italian lawyers, and avvocato to advise him, in the expectation that the Italian lawyer would later engage English lawyers to present his case in court. He wanted his lawyer to see him in prison, and appealed the prison's refusal to allow access for the lawyer. Held: The rule required a 'legal adviser', and an avvocato was included within the 1978 order, which in turn implemented European Law. As a prisoner awaiting sentence, he was undergoing a trial process, and had his rights governed by the Convention, which meant that he must have adequate opportunity to prepare his mitigation and his defence. The Italian lawyer must be allowed entry to the prison.
Prison Rules 1999 2 - European Communities (Services of Lawyers) Order 1978 - European Convention on Human Rights

 
Michael Aitken, Petition for Judicial Review of A Decision of the Governor of Shotts Prison [2002] ScotCS 278
24 Oct 2002
OHCS
Lord Hardie
Scotland, Prisons

[ ScotC ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Sauve v Canada (Chief Electoral Officer); 31-Oct-2002 - 218 DLR (4th) 577; 168 CCC (3d) 449; 5 CR (6th) 203; 294 NR 1; JE 2002-1974; [2002] SCJ No 66 (QL); 117 ACWS (3d) 553; [2002] ACS no 66; 55 WCB (2d) 21; 98 CRR (2d) 1; [2002] 3 SCR 519; 2002 SCC 68 (CanLII)
 
Regina (S) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 13 November 2002; Gazette, 09 January 2003
5 Nov 2002
QBD
Kay J
Prisons, Health
The applicant was mentally ill, and had at various times received inpatient treatment, and also detained. After conviction for harassment offences he was imprisoned, but then again hospitalized and detained under s3 whilst released in licence. Upon his impending release from hospital, the respondent ordered him to be returned to prison. He absconded form the hospital in ignorance of his recall. Held: The order for his return to prison had been made without particular regard to the hospitalization.
Mental Health Act 1983 3 50(4) - Criminal Justice Act 1991 39(2) - Prison Act 1952 49(2)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Regina (Crown Prosecution Service) v Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages and Another Times, 14 November 2002; Gazette, 23 January 2003
7 Nov 2002
CA
Dame Butler-Sloss President, Waller LJ, Sir Philip Otton
Family, Prisons, Evidence, Human Rights
The prisoner awaited trial. Among the prosecution witnesses was his partner. They now sought to marry. The applicant sought to prevent the marriage on the basis that this would make her non-compellable as a witness. Held: Public policy considerations did not apply to prevent the marriage. The duty on the registrar to issue a certificate was absolute. Public policy might provide a reason, but did not in this case. Entering into a lawful marriage could not be an attempt to pervert the course of justice. The right to marry is a human right, and it was not for the prison governor to exercise his discretion to prevent it, since such a discretion could not be exercised save on public policy grounds.
Marriage Act 1949 27A(3) 31(2) - European Convention on Human Rights 12

 
Ploski v Poland 26761/95; [2002] ECHR 729; [2003] I PLR 120; [2002] ECHR 735; [2011] ECHR 1288
12 Nov 2002
ECHR

Human Rights, Prisons
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8 ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
The claimant had been in prison on remand when his mother died. He was refused permission to attend her funeral. His father then died, and he was again refused permission to attend. Held. A prisoner continues to enjoy the right to family life despite his imprisonment. The court was aware of the problems of a financial and logistical nature caused by escorted leave. However, taking into account the seriousness of what is at stake, namely refusing an individual the right to attend the funerals of his parent, the court was of the view that the respondent state could have refused attendance only if there had been compelling reasons and if no alternative solution, like escorted leave could have been found.
European Convention on Human Rights 8
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
West, Regina (on the Application of) v Parole Board Times, 21 November 2002; Gazette, 23 January 2003; [2002] EWCA Civ 1641; [2003] 1 WLR 705
13 Nov 2002
CA
Simon Brown, Sedley, Hale LJJ
Prisons, Human Rights
The prisoner had been released on licence, but then recalled and re-arrested it being alleged that he was in breach of his conditions. His solicitors sought to represent him at the hearing of the parole board which considered whether to recommend his re-release. He complained that the refusal to allow representation infringed his right to a fair trial. Held: The decision as to whether he should again be released on licence was not a determination of criminal charges so as to engage his human rights, and create a right to be represented. The decision related to public safety, and did not involve any punitive element. Unlike in Ezeh, no further change was being considered. The Board "plainly have the power under section 32 of the Act to adopt whatever procedures they think necessary".
Criminal Justice Act 1991 39(5) - European Convention on Human Rights Art 5
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Mouisel v France 67263/01; [2002] ECHR 734; [2002] ECHR 740; [2011] ECHR 2109
14 Nov 2002
ECHR

Human Rights, Prisons
The applicant had been sentenced to 50 years' imprisonment for several offences. He had leukemia and was to receive chemotherapy in hospital. He complained of the conditions to which he was subjected during the hospital visits, including the behaviour of the guards, and the fact that he had been chained to the hospital bed. Medical reports recommended that he be transferred to a specialist clinic, but there was delay in acting on that recommendation. Subsequently, he was released on licence, subject to the condition of obtaining medical treatment. He made two main complaints of breach of Article 3. First, as to the failure to release him from custody in the face of the medical advice. Secondly, as to the circumstances in which he had been restrained and handcuffed. Held: The court made general observations in relation to Article 3: "The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum level is, in the nature of things, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim . . Although the purpose of such treatment is a factor to be taken into account, in particular whether it was intended to humiliate or debase the victim, the absence of any such purpose does not inevitably lead to a finding that there has been no violation of Article 3"
As to handcuffing, the court said: "The Court reiterates that handcuffing does not normally give rise to an issue under Article 3 of the Convention where the measure has been imposed in connection with a lawful detention and does not entail use of force, or public exposure, exceeding what is reasonably considered necessary. In this regard, it is important to consider, for instance, whether there is a danger that the person concerned might abscond or cause injury or damage . . In the instant case, having regard to the applicant's health, to the fact that he was being taken to hospital, to the discomfort of undergoing a chemotherapy session and to his physical weakness, the Court considers that the use of handcuffs was disproportionate to the needs of security. As regards the danger presented by the applicant, and notwithstanding his criminal record, the Court notes the absence of any previous conduct or other evidence giving serious grounds to fear that there was a significant danger of his absconding or resorting to violence. Lastly, the Court notes the recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture concerning the conditions in which prisoners are transferred to hospital to undergo medical examinations – conditions which, in the Committee's opinion, continue to raise problems in terms of medical ethics and respect for human dignity . . The applicant's descriptions of the conditions in which he was escorted to and from hospital do not seem very far removed from the situations causing the Committee concern in this area."
European Convention on Human Rights 3
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Regina (Howard League for Penal Reform) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; QBD 29-Nov-2002 - Times, 05 December 2002; Gazette, 16 January 2003; Gazette, 23 January 2003; [2002] EWHC 2497 (Admin); [2003] 1 FLR 484
 
Nowicka v Poland 30218/96; [2002] ECHR 789; [2002] ECHR 795
3 Dec 2002
ECHR

Human Rights, Prisons
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-1 ; Violation of Art. 8 ; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
Not all interferences with respect for private and family life during lawful detention will engage article 8. Normal restrictions and limitations consequent on prison life and discipline in these circumstances will not constitute in principle a violation of this article.
European Convention on Human Rights 8
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Waite v The United Kingdom; ECHR 10-Dec-2002 - (2002) 36 EHRR 1001; Times, 31 December 2002; 53236/99; [2002] ECHR 798; [2002] ECHR 804; [2003] Prison LR 160; (2003) 36 EHRR 54,
 
Sheppard v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 1921
11 Dec 2002
CA

Prisons, Torts - Other

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (D) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 31 December 2002; [2002] EWHC 2805 (Admin); [2003] 1 WLR 1318
19 Dec 2002
QBD
Stanley Burton J
Human Rights, Prisons
The applicant had been a discretionary life prisoner. His minimum period of detention had passed, but he continued to be detained under a transfer order for his treatment as mental health patient. Held: The absence of any means for him to challenge his continued detention infringed his rights. Had the Mental Health Review Tribunal decided he was no longer to be detained, the Secretary of State had a discretion as to whether the case should then be referred to the Discretionary Lifers Panel. The claimant had a right to such a referral. The case of Benjamin now required the procedure to recognise that right. The legislation was not compatible with the Convention because a patient in respect of whom a Tribunal notified the Home Secretary that he should be conditionally discharged, but that if he were not discharged he should continue to be detained in hospital (see section 74(1)(a) and (b)), did not have a legal right to have his case considered by the Parole Board.
European Convention on Human Rights 5.4 - Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 - Mental Health Act 1983 74
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Spence, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Office [2002] EWHC 2717 (Admin)
19 Dec 2002
Admn

Prisons, Human Rights

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Taylor v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWHC 2761 (Admin)
20 Dec 2002
QBD
The Honourable Mr Justice Maurice Kay
Damages, Prisons
Damages for wrongful imprisonment
[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.