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
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
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 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
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 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
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 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
The appellant was serving a life sentence for terrorist offences. He complained that he should have been released under the 1998 Act. It was said he would be a danger to the public if released. On pre-release home leave he was involved in a seriously violent incident, and it was found that he continued to … Continue reading McClean, Re: HL 7 Jul 2005
The applicants were prisoners who sought judicial review of the use made by the Parole Board of its powers to review their sentences, saying that the Parole Board was not sufficiently independent of the government to guarantee their human rights. . .
A Discretionary lifer is not entitled to a review by a court of his continued detention. His article five rights were not breached. Where a national court imposed a fixed sentence of imprisonment, the supervision required by article 5.4 was . .
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 prisoner complained that the delay in considering his parole was a breach of his human rights.
Held: A life prisoner had a statutory right to have his case referred to the parole board. Here there had been an unjustified and arbitrary . .
The prisoner complained that the Prison service had set a target ot 55 days for hearing a request for a review after a prisoner’s recall.
Held: The prisoner’s case involved a wait of 59 days. The target itself was unlawful in that it failed to . .
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 . .
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
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 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 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
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
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
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
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
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 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
(Commission) Review of the lawfulness of a detention must be by a court, by a body which is judicial in character, and the review must be speedy. The right under Article 5.4 ‘must be seen as independent of the possibility of applying to a court for release on bail. In any event, the Commission observes … Continue reading Zamir v United Kingdom: ECHR 1983
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
(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
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 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
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
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 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
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.
There had been proceedings as to the misuse of confidential information. X, a non-party, now sought disclosure of papers used in that case. The case had been settled by means of a Tomlin Schedule, and that, subject to further order, non-parties . .
The applicant was a restricted mental patient. His conditional release had been ordered, but required a consultant psychiatrist to be found who would agree to supervise him. None such could be found, and his detention continued. After two years he . .
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 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 . .
The applicants complained that they had been made subject to non-derogating control orders as suspected terrorists, but that the failure to inform them of the allegations or evidence against them was unfair and infringed their human rights. The . .