Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-4; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) – claim rejected‘In the present case, the Court cannot speculate as to whether the applicant would have been detained if the procedural guarantees of Article 5 ss 4 of the Convention had been … Continue reading Migon v Poland: ECHR 25 Jun 2002
(Grand Chamber) The claimant had been detained for long periods after coming under suspicion of theft of large sums. Her detention had initially been ordered by prosecutors. Her initial appeals against her detention were also decided by prosecutors. After three weeks she appealed to a court, which refused her appeal about four weeks later. It … Continue reading Nikolova v Bulgaria: ECHR 25 Mar 1999
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-4; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedingsUnsuccessful proceedings brought by the applicant to challenge his detention in a state psychiatric clinic had taken four months to be completed, the period allowed under domestic law being three months. Held: … Continue reading Koendjbiharie v The Netherlands: ECHR 25 Oct 1990
The applicants, discretionary life prisoners, complained of a violation on the ground that they were not able to have the continued lawfulness of their detention decided by a court at reasonable intervals throughout their imprisonment. Held: A discretionary life sentence in English law was composed of a punitive element followed by a security element giving … Continue reading Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell v The United Kingdom: ECHR 25 Oct 1990
The court considered whether the system of home detention was capable of amounting to a detention. Held: The home detention curfew system satisfied the requirements of Article 5. Judges: Cranston J Citations: [2008] EWHC 1787 (QB), [2009] 1 All ER 1128, [2009] 1 WLR 509 Links: Bailii Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights 5(4) Jurisdiction: … Continue reading Mason v Ministry of Justice: QBD 28 Jul 2008
Appeal from a decision that article 5(4) of the Convention did not apply to the recall from parole licence of determinate sentence prisoners. The judge also found that there was no breach of the common law duty of the Parole Board to make decisions concerning the liberty of offenders without undue delay. Judges: Lady Justice … Continue reading Youngsam, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parole Board and Another: CA 27 Feb 2019
ECHR Judgment (Just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient 2832/66; 2835/66; 2899/66 Hudoc Preliminary objection partially allowed (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 5-4; Just satisfaction reserved 2832/66; 2835/66; 2899/66The possibility of a detainee being heard either in person or, where necessary, through some form of … Continue reading De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v Belgium: ECHR 18 Jun 1971
That a detainee may be heard either in person or, where necessary, through some form of representation can be a fundamental procedural guarantee in matters of deprivation of liberty. Article 5(4)was inspired by the English law of habeas corpus. Citations: [1986] ECHR 12, 9862/82, (1986) 9 EHRR 71 Links: Worldlii Statutes: European Convention on Human … Continue reading Sanchez-Reisse v Switzerland: ECHR 21 Oct 1986
The claimant complained that the revocation of his home detention licence under section 255 was an infringement of his human rights. Held: There had been no deprivation of liberty.Collins J said: ‘In my judgment, having regard to the various authorities, it would be wrong for me to decide that Article 5(4) does apply in the … Continue reading Benson, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: Admn 20 Aug 2007
The claimant, a charity assisting immigrants and asylum seekers, challenged a policy document regulating the access to the court of failed applicants facing removal. They said that the new policy, reducing the opportunity to appeal to 72 hours or less, made ineffective any right for judicial review. Held: The request was granted, and the 2010 … Continue reading Medical Justice, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 26 Jul 2010
Three prisoners raised questions as to the circumstances in which the Parole Board is required to hold an oral hearing before making an adverse decision. One of the appeals (Osborn) concerned a determinate sentence prisoner who was released on licence but then recalled to custody. The other appeals (Booth and Reilly) were indeterminate sentence prisoners … Continue reading Osborn v The Parole Board: SC 9 Oct 2013
The claimant was a prisoner released on a home detention licence, but his licence had been revoked. He now said that the way it had been revoked, without the respondent’s decision being subject to confirmation by the Parole Board, nor to other opportunity to make representations, was infringement of his human rights. Held: The appeal … Continue reading Whiston, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: CA 25 Oct 2012
The claimant, having been released from prison on licence, objected to the procedure whereby his licence was revoked with no means for him to challenge that decision. Held: The appeal was dismissed. Article 5(4) did not apply to the particular circumstances. Neuberger L formulated a broader principle that where a person is lawfully sentenced to … Continue reading Whiston, Regina (on The Application of): SC 2 Jul 2014
The court considered possible human rights infringements caused by delay in the processing of Parole Board hearings. . .
. .
S was serving a term of life imprisonment. After serving the tariff, his detention should have been reviewed. After several serious delays, and a decision that he should instead be transferred to open conditions, he brought proceedings for judicial . .
The claimant sought judicial review of her detention under section 2 of the 1983 Act.
Held: The request was rejected. The tribunal had been correct to treat the original application as out of time. The Secretary of State’s decision was neither . .
A section 255 home detention licence revocation does not involve a deprivation of liberty so as to engage Article 5(4). . .
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 … Continue reading Williams v The Secretary of State for the Home Office: CA 17 Apr 2002
The applicant questioned the compatibility of s185 of the 1996 Act with Human Rights law. The family sought emergency housing. The child of the family, found to be in priority housing need, was subject also to immigration control. Though the matter had been settled the court was invited to pursue the decision. Held: The Act … Continue reading Morris, Regina (on the Application of) v Westminster City Council and Another: Admn 7 Oct 2004
‘These two appeals arise out of actions for damages brought against the United Kingdom government by detainees, alleging unlawful detention and maltreatment by British forces. They are two of several hundred actions in which similar claims are made. In both cases, the claim is based in part on article 5(1) of the European Convention on … Continue reading Al-Waheed v Ministry of Defence: SC 17 Jan 2017
There had been a collision at sea. Held: (Addendum) Where the admiralty court sought advice from assessors, modern good practice required that the advice should be disclosed to the parties advisers and that they have opportunity to comment. Nautical assessors are experts within the Rules. The practice set out in the Hannibal did not fulfil … Continue reading ‘Bow Spring’, Owners of Ship v ‘Manzanillo Ii’, Owners of Ship: CA 28 Jul 2004
ECHR Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objections dismissed (victim, non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) ; Violation of Art. 5-3 ; Violation of Art. 5-4 ; Violation of Art. 5-5 ; No separate issue under Art. 13 ; No violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected ; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation … Continue reading Pavletic v Slovakia: ECHR 22 Jun 2004
The defendant had been sentenced for offences of violence, but an additional period was imposed to protect the public. He had been refused leave for reconsideration of that part of his sentence after he completed the normal segment of his sentence. He wanted a consideration which would parallel the new won rights of review for … Continue reading Giles, Regina (on the Application of) v Parole Board and Another: HL 31 Jul 2003
The court rejected a challenge to the Home Secretary’s decision to substitute a period of 18 months for the 9 months recommended by the Parole Board to be passed in open conditions before the prisoner’s next review. ‘[The right not to be detained arbitrarily] can be breached as a matter of law if the Home … Continue reading Spence, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 23 May 2003
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 … Continue reading Regina (Noorkoiv) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another: CA 30 May 2002
Damages were claimed by three mental health patients whose rights under Article 5(4) had been infringed because of inordinate delay in processing their claims to mental health review tribunals. Held: Article 5.5 did not make an award of damages mandatory. It was complied with provided that it was possible to make an application for compensation; … Continue reading KB and Others, Regina (on the Applications of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal: Admn 23 Apr 2002
(Commission) The application was made a patient, restricted under the 1959 Act. A mental health review tribunal which concluded that the continued detention of a restricted patient was no longer justified had power to recommend but not to order the discharge of the patient. Held: This advisory power did not meet the Convention requirement: ‘Nonetheless, … Continue reading X v United Kingdom: ECHR 5 Nov 1981
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 … Continue reading Oldham v The United Kingdom: ECHR 26 Sep 2000
The determination of a life sentence by the Home Secretary without recourse to a court was unlawful. There had been a violation of article 5(4) because the applicant who had been detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure was unable, after the expiry of his punitive period, to bring the case of his continued detention before a … Continue reading Hussain v The United Kingdom: ECHR 21 Feb 1996
The applicant, aged 17, was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment in the interests of public safety, being considered by the trial judge on appeal to be dangerous. Held: ‘The court agrees with the Commission and the applicant that the clearly stated purpose for which [the] sentence was imposed, taken together with … Continue reading Weeks v The United Kingdom: ECHR 2 Mar 1987
The applicant was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for theft. He had a previous convictions and was thought to have a persistent tendency to crime, and was placed at the government’s disposal for 10 years on that ground. This was subject to appeal, and was classified not as a security measure but as a penalty … Continue reading Van Droogenbroeck v Belgium: ECHR 24 Jun 1982
The applicants had been detained under Belgian vagrancy laws. An earlier decision had found that their rights had been infringed because of the lack of effective means for them to challenge their detention. The Belgian government said that the applicants had not exhausted their national remedies. Held: The complaints were admissible. Later changes in Belgian … Continue reading In re De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v Belgium (No 1): ECHR 18 Nov 1970
The claimant prisoner complained of the delay in his release, awaiting a review. Domestic court proceedings had lasted two and a half months at first instance and a further three months on appeal. The proceedings had been brought by the public prosecutor to obtain an extension of the period during which the applicant, who had … Continue reading Rutten v The Netherlands: ECHR 24 Jul 2001
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 … Continue reading Regina v Home Secretary ex parte Gunn: CA 2000
The applicant had been sentenced to eight years imprisonment for supplying heroin and released on licence after serving two-thirds of this sentence. He was recalled for breach of the residence conditions of his bail. The Parole Board then considered whether he should be released again and concluded that he should not. He sought to attack … Continue reading Brown v United Kingdom: ECHR 26 Oct 2004
The applicant had been released on licence after serving half a six year prison service under a law which permitted the release of a prisoner on licence after serving half his sentence. There was then a series of court hearings which resulted in the order for his release being quashed. He sought to attack aspects … Continue reading Ganusauskas v Lithuania: ECHR 7 Sep 1999
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.’ Judges: … Continue reading Regina (Burgess) v Home Secretary: 2000
The claimant challenged being recalled to prison from licence after being found in an area from which he was excluded as a condition of his parole. Judges: Turner J Citations: [2017] EWHC 729 (Admin) Links: Bailii Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights 5, Criminal Justice Act 2003 244 254 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Cited … Continue reading Youngsam, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parole Board: Admn 7 Apr 2017
Extended Determinate Sentence created Other Status The prisoner was subject to an extended determinate sentence (21 years plus 4) for 10 offences of rape. He complained that as such he would only be eligible for parole after serving two thirds of his sentence rather than one third, and said that this was discriminatory. Held: The … Continue reading Stott, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: SC 28 Nov 2018
The right of access to the courts is not absolute but may be subject to limitations. These are permitted by implication since the right of access ‘by its very nature calls for regulation by the State, regulation which may vary in time and place according to the needs and resources of the community and of … Continue reading Ashingdane v The United Kingdom: ECHR 28 May 1985
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him. Held: The appeal failed (by a majority). The … Continue reading Roberts v Parole Board: HL 7 Jul 2005
The applicant prisoner complained of a delay in his release pending a review by the Parole Board. Held: The violation of article 5(4) resulted from a delay in the holding of a review by the Board following the expiry of an IPP prisoner’s tariff. The court proceeded on the basis that the Board would not … Continue reading Betteridge v The United Kingdom: ECHR 29 Jan 2013
Three claims for judicial review of decisions of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, rejecting the claim of each Claimant that returning each of them to Italy would result in a real risk that each of them would be exposed to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR and … Continue reading MS, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 22 Apr 2015
The appellant challenged his recall to prison from licence. He had been convicted in 1973 of the murder of two police officers. He had remained at liberty for 18 years, befire his licence was revoked on the basis of confidential iintelligence information. The recall was considered by a panel of commissioners and material was served, … Continue reading Martin Corey, Re for Judicial Review: SC 4 Dec 2013
The claimant had been sentenced to a short period of imprisonment but with an indeterminate term until he demonstrated that it was no longer necessary for the protection of the public. He complained that the term having expired, no opportunity had been given to him to show that he could be released. Held: ‘The legality … Continue reading Secretary of State for Justice v Walker; Same v James: CA 1 Feb 2008
Each defendant challenged the way he had been treated on revocation of his parole licence, saying he should have been given the opportunity to make oral representations. Held: The prisoners’ appeals were allowed. Lord Bingham stated: ‘While an oral hearing is most obviously necessary to achieve a just decision in a case where facts are … Continue reading Regina v Parole Board ex parte Smith, Regina v Parole Board ex parte West (Conjoined Appeals): HL 27 Jan 2005
The applicants had each been given a life sentence, but having served the minimum term had been due to have the continued detention reviewed to establish whether or not continued detention was necessary for the protection of the pblic. It had not been, and each had claimed there was no basis for his continued detention, … Continue reading Faulkner, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another: SC 1 May 2013
(Grand Chamber) The applicants had been subjected to severe restrictions. They were foreign nationals suspected of terrorist involvement, but could not be deported for fear of being tortured. The UK had derogated from the Convention to put the restrictions in place. Assurances had been given by the home nations that on return they would not … Continue reading A and Others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 19 Feb 2009
The various claimants sought damages for established breaches of their human rights involving breaches of statutory duty by way of maladministration. Does the state have a duty to provide support so as to avoid a threat to the family life of the claimant? Held: A finding that a Convention right has been infringed, including a … Continue reading Anufrijeva and Another v London Borough of Southwark: CA 16 Oct 2003
The appellant complained that the system for considering the release of a life prisoner did not comply with the Convention when the decision was made by the Secretary of State and not by the Parole Board, or the court. The Board had recommended his release, but that had been overriden by the respondent. had not … Continue reading Black, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: HL 21 Jan 2009
The applicant had been sentenced to an indefinite term for public protection, but the determinate part of his sentence had passed with no consideration as to whether his continued detention was required. Held: The post tariff detention was not unlawful and therefore no action for damages lay. The clear failures of the respondent to implement … Continue reading Secretary of State for Justice v James: HL 6 May 2009
Challenge to the rule change introduced by the Parole Board Rules 2019 granting a prisoner or the Secretary of State a 21-day period to apply for an administrative review of a Parole Board decision. The Appellant submits that the Reconsideration . .
The applicants complained that, as convicted prisoners, they had been subject to a blanket ban on voting in elections and had been, or would be, prevented from voting in one or more of the following: elections to the European Parliament on 4 June . .
The claimant complained that after alleging unlawful interception of his communications, the hearing before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal was not attended by appropriate safeguards. He had been a campaigner against police abuse. His requests to . .
The court made a declaration that the claimant has suffered a breach of his rights under Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights by his continuing in detention beyond the expiry of the minimum term, without reasonable steps having . .
Challenge to human rights compliance of Mental Health Review Tribunal . .
Fundamental issues as to the function and status of the Parole Board. It does so in the context of a challenge to the decision of the Board on the 18th July 2006 refusing to direct the claimant’s release on licence under section 247 of the Criminal . .
The claimant alleged that the methods chosen for the nationalisation of Northern Rock plc infringed its human rights in providing unfair compensation.
Held: The claim was dismissed. The provision made by the 2008 Act did not infringe the . .
The applicant was a discretionary life prisoner compulsorily detained in a mental hospital. His tariff had now expired. If not detained under the 1983 Act he would now be entitled to a review. He argued that there should be a joint hearing.
C had been recalled from parole, and complained that the procedure had been unfair in that it had been almost entirely based upon closed materials.
Held: The Commissioners’ decision was indeed based solely or decisively on the closed material. . .
The claimant had been recalled to prison from parole, and challenged his recall, saying that the procedure, being almost entirely based upon closed material infringed his rights to a fair trial. The respondent now appealed against an order finding . .
The appellant had been detained under the 1983 Act. Her appeal had been declined as out of time, and she now appealed against rejection of her request for judicial review.
Held: The appeal failed, even though the application to the tribunal . .
The appellant had been charged with and disciplined for a prison offence. He was refused legal assistance at his hearing, and it was accepted that the proceedings involved the determination of a criminal charge within the meaning of article 6 of the . .
A jury had found, under section 4(5) of the 1964 Act as amended, that the defendant was unfit to plead. The court considered section 5 of the 1964 Act.
Held: A judge of the Crown Court is obliged under the section to make a mandatory order . .
The applicant asserted that the delays in the reviews, undertaken by the Parole Board, of his continued detention as a discretionary life prisoner, was a breach of his right to a speedy decision. The delays were between 21 and 24 months. Such delays . .
The claimant sought damages saying that his detention in prison beyond the minimum period pending a review was unlawful when that review was delayed. He now appealed against dismissal of his claim when he had not appeared at court, being unlawfully . .
