Click the case name for better results:

Giles, Regina (on the Application of) v Parole Board and Another: HL 31 Jul 2003

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

KB and Others, Regina (on the Applications of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal: Admn 23 Apr 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

Hussain v The United Kingdom: ECHR 21 Feb 1996

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

Weeks v The United Kingdom: ECHR 2 Mar 1987

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

Regina (D) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: QBD 19 Dec 2002

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 … Continue reading Regina (D) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: QBD 19 Dec 2002

Brown v United Kingdom: ECHR 26 Oct 2004

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

Regina v Parole Board, ex parte MacNeil: CA 18 Apr 2001

The interval between occasions of consideration of the granting of parole to a discretionary life prisoner, was to be determined on the facts and circumstances of each prisoner. There was no rule that the maximum period between reviews was to be two years. The earlier case had expressly stated that no maximum interval was being … Continue reading Regina v Parole Board, ex parte MacNeil: CA 18 Apr 2001

Regina (Burgess) v Home Secretary: 2000

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

Regina (Mcneil) v Parole Board: CACD 17 May 2001

The interval between occasions of consideration of the granting of parole to a discretionary life prisoner, was to be determined on the facts and circumstances of each prisoner. There was no rule that the maximum period between reviews was to be two years. The earlier case had expressly stated that no maximum interval was being … Continue reading Regina (Mcneil) v Parole Board: CACD 17 May 2001

Gallagher v Gallagher (No 1) (Reporting Restrictions): FC 13 Jun 2022

Private Hearings are Not in Secret H sought an order restricting reporting of the divorce financial remedy proceedings, or an anonymity order. Held: The application was refused save as to identification of the children, and certain tax matters. The hearing was listed as in Private restricted only that certain people only were entitled to attend, … Continue reading Gallagher v Gallagher (No 1) (Reporting Restrictions): FC 13 Jun 2022

Oldham v The United Kingdom: ECHR 26 Sep 2000

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

In re De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v Belgium (No 1): ECHR 18 Nov 1970

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

Regina (Sim) v Parole Board: CA 18 Dec 2003

The prisoner had been sentenced to an extended term of five years imprisonment for indecent assault. He had been released, and then recalled for alleged breaches of his licence. The respondent appealed findings that such a recall was subject to article 5, and that his release would be mandatory under s44A(b) if his continued detention … Continue reading Regina (Sim) v Parole Board: CA 18 Dec 2003

A and others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 21 May 2008

The court considered complaints by the applicants as to the system of control orders imposed on them. Citations: [2008] 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

Curley v United Kingdom: ECHR 28 Mar 2000

A prisoner was sentenced to be detained during her majesty’s pleasure, but given a tariff which expired in 1987. Reviews of his continued detention did not lead to his release. He complained that the system of reviews by a Parole Board whose recommendations for release were subject to approval by the Home Secretary did not … Continue reading Curley v United Kingdom: ECHR 28 Mar 2000

Regina (C) v Mental Health Review Tribunal: CA 11 Jul 2001

When a person detained compulsorily applied for a review of his admission, it was unacceptable to list all such cases to be heard only after eight weeks. Whilst such cases might often require detailed assessment which would take some time after admission, and the consequences of a decision to confirm the detention were serious for … Continue reading Regina (C) v Mental Health Review Tribunal: CA 11 Jul 2001

Stafford v The United Kingdom: ECHR 28 May 2002

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

Rimschi v The Republic of Moldova: ECHR 13 Jan 2015

The applicant complained under Article 5 – 3 of the Convention about the length of his detention and the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for it, and that under Article 5 – 4 of the Convention that the proceedings concerning his detention on remand had not been fair because the courts had failed to … Continue reading Rimschi v The Republic of Moldova: ECHR 13 Jan 2015

Martin Corey, Re for Judicial Review: SC 4 Dec 2013

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

Cherry, Reclaiming Motion By Joanna Cherry QC MP and Others v The Advocate General: SCS 11 Sep 2019

(First Division, Inner House) The reclaimer challenged dismissal of her claim for review of the recent decision for the prorogation of the Parliament at Westminster. Held: Reclaim was granted. The absence of reasons allowed the court to infer that the reason for the prorogation was unlawful.‘It was the role of the courts to protect Parliament. … Continue reading Cherry, Reclaiming Motion By Joanna Cherry QC MP and Others v The Advocate General: SCS 11 Sep 2019

Faulkner, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another: SC 1 May 2013

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

A and Others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 19 Feb 2009

(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

Dixon, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice: Admn 30 Sep 2015

‘the claimant, a former prisoner at HMP Manchester, complains of what he says was unacceptable delay by the prison service in 2013-2014 in providing a psychological assessment and report which the parole board had recommended should be obtained in respect of him. He contends that the unacceptable delay was of the order of 5.5 months, … Continue reading Dixon, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice: Admn 30 Sep 2015

Chahal v The United Kingdom: ECHR 15 Nov 1996

Proper Reply Opportunity Required on Deportation (Grand Chamber) The claimant was an Indian citizen who had been granted indefinite leave to remain in this country but whose activities as a Sikh separatist brought him to the notice of the authorities both in India and here. The Home Secretary of the day decided that he should … Continue reading Chahal v The United Kingdom: ECHR 15 Nov 1996

Black, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: HL 21 Jan 2009

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

Anonymity Orders

The court system has acknowledged that the movement toward wider and wider publication of case law (of which we form part) has potential conflicts with privacy in general, and GDPR and Human Rights in particular. There have therefore been developed much more explicit systems for applying to court for ‘anonymity orders’ – an order that … Continue reading Anonymity Orders