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
Mr Johnson awaited trial for crimes of violence. He was diagnosed mentally ill, and on conviction made subject to a hospital order, and restricted without limit of time. He made progress, but was not discharged or re-classified. At a fourth tribunal hearing in June 1989 the opinion was that he was no longer suffering from … Continue reading Johnson v The United Kingdom: ECHR 24 Oct 1997
Two foreign nationals with leave to remain in this country committed serious crimes. The Secretary of State ordered their deportation. Held: Where the deportation of a foreigner following a conviction here, would conflict with his human rights, the court had to assess whether the, first, the objective could be achieved by some alternative, less interfering, … Continue reading Samaroo and Sezek v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 17 Jul 2001
An application for an anti-social behaviour order against an individual was a civil, not a criminal proceeding. The standard of evidence required was on the balance of probability; the civil standard. Such proceedings were not subject to the additional protection of the human rights convention. Necessarily, the circumstances from which protection was sought were ones … Continue reading Regina v Manchester Crown Court, ex parte McCann and others: QBD 22 Nov 2000
The claimant had suffered mental illness and threatened to hurt himself. He was taken into hospital as a voluntary patient, but in effect detained compulsorily. He lacked capacity to consent to medical treatment. Held: The holding of a patient informally amounted to a detention, and that detention was unlawful. It made no difference whether the … Continue reading L v United Kingdom: ECHR 5 Oct 2004
Towards the end of a substantial May Day demonstration on the streets of London, police surrounded about 3,000 people in Oxford Circus and did not allow them to leave for seven hours. The claimant who was present, but not involved in any of the organisation sought damages. Held: Police have powers to act out of … Continue reading Austin and Saxby v Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis: QBD 23 Mar 2005
Grand Chamber – The appellant claimed damages for being held in prison beyond the term of his sentence. Having been released on licence from a life sentence for murder, he was re-sentenced for a cheque fraud. He was not released after the end of the sentence he served for that offence. He said there was … Continue reading Stafford v The United Kingdom: ECHR 28 May 2002
The applicants were Kurdish asylum seekers. The Home Secretary introduced powers to detain certain asylum seekers for a short period in order to facilitate the speedy resolution of their applications. Only those who it was suspected might run away were detained. Held: The detention was short, and was justified by the need for speed. The … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex parte Saadi and others: HL 31 Oct 2002
The claimant having been released on licence from a prison sentence refused to comply with the conditions of his licence on the ground that he was entitled to be released unconditionally. He was returned to prison. The Divisional Court dismissed his . .
The applicants had been disciplined whilst in prison, and suffered various penalties including the loss of remission. They argued that the penalties had been imposed in breach of their human rights and that the protection given for intimate searches . .
The applicant having been released on licence had his licence revoked. The decision had been made at a hearing which considered evidence on paper only, which he said was unfair.
Held: The case law had maintained a proper distinction between . .
The prisoner complained of the power given to the defendant to block the early release of prisoners sentenced between certain dates for serious offences, saying that such a decision was for the courts only.
Held: The provision was incompatible . .
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
In a medical negligence case, the court ordered a pre-trial private meeting between the expert witnesses for the claimant and defendant. The claimant objected, fearing that pressure would be brought on his professional witness by his colleagues, thus denying him a fair trial under article 6. Held: The aim of the experts’ meeting was to … Continue reading Hubbard and Others v Lambeth Southwark and Lewisham Health Authority and Others: CA 7 Sep 2001
The court considered complaints by the applicants as to the system of control orders imposed on them. Citations:  ECHR 421, 3455/05 Links: Bailii Statutes: Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, European Convention on Human Rights 3 5.1 5.4 Jurisdiction: Human Rights Citing: Cited – A and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 21-Jan-2008 The … Continue reading A and others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 21 May 2008
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 process of extradition is not one itself involving the imposition of a criminal penalty, and therefore such proceedings were outside the ambit of the convention. The prisoner sought to challenge an extradition requested from South Africa, claiming an element of retrospectivity. The fact that at the time the offence was committed there was no … Continue reading Regina (Marais) v Governor of Brixton Prison and Another: QBD 30 Nov 2001
Provisions were in place which said that a person charged with a very serious crime of violence having once been convicted previously of rape or murder he was to be refused bail automatically. Although the provision had later been altered, the provision did infringe his human rights, and the system also denied to him an … Continue reading Caballero v United Kingdom: ECHR 29 Feb 2000
(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 claimant challenged the terms of the control order made against him under the 2005 Act saying that it was too restrictive. Though his family was in London, the control order confined him to a house many miles away for 16 hours a day. Held: AP’s appeal was allowed. It was wrong to blame the … Continue reading Secretary of State for The Home Department v AP: SC 16 Jun 2010
(Grand Chamber) A Cambodian vessel, The Winner, trafficked drugs on the high seas (Cape Verde). It was detected and boarded by the French authorities, detaining the crew on board and took them on the vessel to France for trial. France was, but Cambodia was not, party to the relevant international drug trafficking conventions, which did … Continue reading Medvedyev And Others v France: ECHR 29 Mar 2010
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 . .
ECHR Judgment (Merits) – Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 5-5; No violation of Art. 5-1; No violation of Art. 5-4; Not necessary to examine Art. 13; Just satisfaction reserved.
The four applicants . .
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (six month period); Violation of Art. 5-1 as regards the applicant
The applicant complained of violation of his article 5 rights . .