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 have ordered the applicant’s release had the review taken place speedily. It nevertheless made an award on the basis that the delay ‘gave rise to feelings of frustration which . . were not sufficiently compensated by the findings of violations of the Convention’
1497/10 – HEJUD, [2013] ECHR 97
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Citing:
At First Instance Court – Betteridge, Regina (On the Application of) v the Parole Board Admn 23-Jun-2009
Application was made for damages after a wrongful delay in the prisoner’s release.
Held: Collins J urged practitioners not to pursue actions which are ‘not likely to achieve any sensible redress’. Claims in damages cannot be brought unless it . .
Cited by:
Cited – Creasey and Another v Sole and Others ChD 24-May-2013
The parties, brothers and sisters, disputed ownership of lands to be inherited from the estates of their parents, and whether parts of the farm purchased in several lots under different ownerships descended as part of the farm. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Prisons, Damages
Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.470645
