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 opportunity to claim any compensation.
The period spent on remand had been deducted from the sentence, so that ordinarily no award would have been made. The court however noted that the applicant’s state of health was such that any release on bail prior to his trial could have been his last days of liberty. There was also undisputed evidence that the applicant would have had a good chance of being released on bail but for the breach of article 5(3). In these exceptional circumstances, an award of pounds 1000 was made ‘on an equitable basis’.
Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 5-5; Not necessary to examine Art. 13; Not necessary to examine Art. 14+5-3; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention procedure
Times 29-Feb-2000, (2000) 30 EHRR 643, 32819/96,  ECHR 52,  ECHR 53
Cited – O v Crown Court at Harrow HL 26-Jul-2006
The claimant said that his continued detention after the custody time limits had expired was an infringement of his human rights. He faced continued detention having been refused bail because of his arrest on a grave charge, having a previous . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Criminal Practice, Damages
Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.78813