Category: Prisons

Wynne v United Kingdom: ECHR 18 Jul 1994

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 incorporated into that judgment. The court held that the mandatory life sentence belonged to a different category from other sentences because it is imposed automatically as punishment for the offence of murder irrespective of conditions pertaining to the dangerousness of the offender.

Citations:

Ind Summary 26-Sep-1994, Times 27-Jul-1994, 26/1993/421/500, (1994) 19 EHRR 333, 15484/89, [1994] ECHR 24

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5.4

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Waite v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-Dec-2002
The claimant had been sentenced to be detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure when a youth. After release on licence, the Parole Board met and revoked that licence without an oral hearing, and in contravention of the rules. He did not dispute the facts . .
Cited – 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. . .
Cited – Flynn, Meek, Nicol and McMurray v Her Majesty’s Advocate PC 18-Mar-2004
PC (High Court of Justiciary) The applicants had each been convicted of murder, and complained that the transitional provisions for determining how long should be served under the life sentences infringed their . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.90638

Ahmed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 4 May 2006

The applicant had been released from prison on licence, but was subject to the use of an electronic tag, because his offence had been one of violence. The tag was removed and the applicant made himself scarce. His licence was revoked. His solicitors made representations about this, but his request was not to be dealt with unless he surrendered, which he did. It was decided that there was no evidence that the tag had not itself failed as stated by the applicant, but the applicant still wished to argue that the revocation scheme was unlawful.
Held: In fact the claim had become academic, and the court declined to hear the case in full.

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1159 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Crime and Disorder Act 1988, Criminal Justice Act 2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons

Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.242200

The Children’s Rights Alliance for England, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice: CA 6 Feb 2013

Appeal, with permission against a judgment dismissing the appellant’s application for judicial review seeking an order that the defendant Secretary of State provide or facilitate the provision of information to stated categories of children as to the illegal use of restraint techniques on them when they were detained in Secure Training Centres (STCs) in the United Kingdom.

Judges:

Laws, Sullivan, Black LJJ

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Civ 34, [2013] WLR(D) 57, [2013] HRLR 17, [2013] 1 WLR 3667

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Prison Act 1952 43(1)(d)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons, Children

Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.470828

Cummings and Others v The Ministry of Justice: QBD 17 Jan 2013

The claimant prisoners brought actions seeking damages for assault and other torts. They had complained of racist treatment and of the conditions of their segregation. The court now considered applications for the management of the case.
Held: Trial by jury was refused. The evidence sought to be presented as similar fact evidence was not such, since it dealt with the actions of prison officers other than those now defendants.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 33 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Principal judgment – Cummings and Others v The Ministry of Justice QBD 22-Jan-2013
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Torts – Other, Evidence

Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.470147

P, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 11 Dec 2003

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.
Held: There is no necessary breach of the requirement of a speedy hearing caused by the provision of successive hearings by a mental health review tribunal and (if that results in discharge from MHA detention) a Discretionary Lifer Panel. Individual delays can be judged on their own facts. The fact that the claimant had no right to have his case considered by the Parole Board until after his discharge from detention under the MHA did not infringe his rights under Article 5.4.

Judges:

Stanley Burnton J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 2953 (Admin), Times 29-Dec-2003

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights , Mental Health Act 1983 49

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte H and Others, Regina v Same ex parte Hickey CA 29-Jul-1994
A discretionary life prisoner who had been transferred to a mental hospital is not automatically eligible for a certificate under the section. The right conferred on a discretionary life prisoner by section 34 of the 1991 Act did not extend to those . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – James and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 21-Feb-1986
The claimants challenged the 1967 Act, saying that it deprived them of their property rights when lessees were given the power to purchase the freehold reversion.
Held: Article 1 (P1-1) in substance guarantees the right of property. Allowing a . .
Cited – Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Oct-1990
The applicants, discretionary life prisoners, complained of a violation on the ground that they were not able to have the continued lawfulness of their detention decided by a court at reasonable intervals throughout their imprisonment.
Held: A . .
Cited – Megyeri v Germany ECHR 12-May-1992
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-4; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings . .
Cited – Regina v East London and the City Mental Health NHS Trust and Another ex parte Von Brandenburg (Aka Hanley) HL 13-Nov-2003
The patient was ordered to be discharged and released from hospital. The tribunal making the order had not accepted the medical recommendations. His release was deferred pending the finding of accommodation, but in the meantime, a social worker . .
Cited – Regina (C) v London South and West Region Mental Health Review Tribunal CA 2001
A standardised period before a hearing to review a patient’s detention that does not vary with the facts of each case may involve a breach of the Convention right. . .
Distinguished – Regina (Noorkoiv) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another CA 30-May-2002
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 . .
Cited – Ashingdane v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-May-1985
The right of access to the courts is not absolute but may be subject to limitations. These are permitted by implication since the right of access ‘by its very nature calls for regulation by the State, regulation which may vary in time and place . .
Cited – Regina v Offen; Regina v McGuillard; Regina v McKeown; Regina v Okwuegbunam; Regina v Saunders (Stephen) CACD 15-Nov-2000
For the purposes of the Act, where a defendant faced a compulsory life sentence following two convictions for certain offences, a finding by the judge that the defendant did not pose a serious risk to society, could be an exceptional circumstance . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Anufrijeva and Another v London Borough of Southwark CA 16-Oct-2003
The various claimants sought damages for established breaches of their human rights involving breaches of statutory duty by way of maladministration. Does the state have a duty to provide support so as to avoid a threat to the family life of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Health, Human Rights

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.188745

Ramirez Sanchez v France: ECHR 2 Dec 2010

(Execution of Judgment) Record of satisfaction of judgment against it by the respondent.

Judges:

L Wildhaber P

Citations:

[2010] ECHR 2241

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3

Citing:

See Also – Ramirez Sanchez v France ECHR 27-Jan-2005
The applicant complained that he had been held in solitary confinement for a period of nearly 8 years whilst in prison, and had not been given a remedy.
Held: There had been no breach of article 3 by the confinement, but article 13 had been . .
Grand Chamber – Ramirez Sanchez v France ECHR 4-Jul-2006
ramirez_sanchezECHR2006
(Grand Chamber) The applicant, better known as ‘Carlos the Jackal’, complained that he had been held in solitary confinement for 8 years by the respondent whilst in prison contrary to article 3, and that he had not been given any means of challening . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.468880

Enea v Italy: ECHR 17 Sep 2009

(Grand Chamber) The applicant, a prisoner serving a long sentence for Mafia-type criminal offences, was subjected to a special regime by ministerial decrees. The restrictions included not only very limited family visits but also a long period (seemingly about three years) in a special form of high-security unit which involved separation from prisoners in other units but not total segregation.
Held: In deciding that there was a dispute over a ‘right’, the Grand Chamber referred to the European Prison Rules, observing that although they are not legally binding on the Member States, ‘the great majority . . recognise that prisoners enjoy most of the rights to which [they refer] and provide avenues of appeal against measures restricting those rights’.
As to the question whether the disputed right was a ‘civil right’ for the purposes of Article 6, the Grand Chamber stated: ‘some of the restrictions alleged by the applicant – such as those restricting his contact with his family and those affecting his pecuniary rights – clearly fell within the sphere of personal rights and were therefore civil in nature (see Ganci).’ It added ‘The Court is well aware that it is essential for States to retain a wide discretion with regard to the means of ensuring security and order in the difficult context of prison . . Any restriction affecting these civil rights must be open to challenge in judicial proceedings, on account of the nature of the restrictions (for example, a prohibition on receiving more than a certain number of visits from family members each month or the ongoing monitoring of correspondence and telephone calls) and of their possible repercussions (for instance, difficulty in maintaining family ties or relationships with non-family members, exclusion from outdoor exercise). By this means it is possible to achieve the fair balance which must be struck between the constraints facing the State in the prison context on the one hand and the protection of prisoners’ rights on the other.’
As to the three years in the high security unit: ‘The Court observes that, while it is true that a prisoner cannot challenge per se the merits of a decision to place him or her in an EIV unit, an appeal lies to the courts responsible for the execution of sentence against any restriction of a ‘civil’ right (affecting, for instance, a prisoner’s family visits or correspondence). However, given that in the instant case the applicant’s placement in the unit did not entail any restrictions of that kind, even the possible lack of such a remedy could not be said to amount to denial of access to a court.’

Judges:

Jean-Paul Costa, P

Citations:

[2009] ECHR 1293, 74912/01

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

Applied – Ganci v Italie ECHR 30-Oct-2003
The applicant was serving two life sentences for Mafia related activities. He challenged nine decrees issued by the Minister of Justice under which he was held under a special prison regime for a period of four years. His case related to delays by . .
Cited – Gulmez v Turkey ECHR 20-May-2008
The applicant complained inter alia of successive decisions which had deprived him of visitation rights for about a year as punishment for disciplinary offences whilst in prison.
Held: ‘the restriction on the applicant’s visiting rights . .
See Also – Enea v Italy ECHR 23-Sep-2004
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Stegarescu and Bahrin v Portugal ECHR 6-Apr-2010
The two applicants complained that they had been held in solitary confinement for seven months after receipt of intelligence about an escape plan.
Held: There had been a violation of the prisoners’ article 6 rights. They had been given no . .
Cited – King v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 13-Oct-2010
The claimant sought judicial review of decisions that the claimant had committed a disciplinary offence whilst in custody at a Young Offenders Institute.
Held: The claim failed.
Pitchford LJ considered the ECHR jurisprudence, and said: . .
Cited – Boulois v Luxembourg ECHR 14-Dec-2010
The applicant was serving a long sentence for serious offences. He had submitted several requests for ‘prison leave’ in order to carry out tasks in preparation for his eventual release. These had been refused by the Attorney General. The domestic . .
Cited – King, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 27-Mar-2012
In each case the prisoners challenged their transfer to cellular confinement or segregation within prison or YOI, saying that the transfers infringed their rights under Article 6, saying that domestic law, either in itself or in conjunction with . .
Cited – Bourgass and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 29-Jul-2015
The Court considered the procedures when a prisoner is kept in solitary confinement, otherwise described as ‘segregation’ or ‘removal from association’, and principally whether decisions to keep the appellants in segregation for substantial periods . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.468875

Scholes, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 16 Jan 2006

The deceased had committed suicide whilst in a Young Offenders Institute. The coroner had called for a further enquiry into the way he had been sentenced. The Home Office refused a public enquiry saying that the coroner’s inquest had satisfied its human rights duties. Judicial review was now sought of that decision.
Held: The respondent argued that the claimant knew the extent of the coroner’s proposed enquiry, and had opportuniy to challenge it. The Inquest had heard evidence from the prisons service as to its policies and the estate available. The court contrasted the resources available in the limited number of secure hostels with those in young offenders institutions.

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v l Lobban Sawyers and Others, Regina v Q; Attorney General’s Reference Nos 4 and 7 Of 2002 CACD 29-Jan-2002
The appeals concerned sentences for robbery of mobile phones in public places.
Held: Such thefts had become commonplace. The court would not set out to provide sentencing guidelines, but rather to bring together existing guidance. The courts . .
Cited – Amin, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Oct-2003
Prisoner’s death – need for full public enquiry
The deceased had been a young Asian prisoner. He was placed in a cell overnight with a prisoner known to be racist, extremely violent and mentally unstable. He was killed. The family sought an inquiry into the death.
Held: There had been a . .
Cited – Middleton, Regina (on the Application of) v Coroner for the Western District of Somerset HL 11-Mar-2004
The deceased had committed suicide in prison. His family felt that the risk should have been known to the prison authorities, and that they had failed to guard against that risk. The coroner had requested an explanatory note from the jury.
Cited – Plymouth City Council v HM Coroner for the County of Devon and Another Admn 27-May-2005
The local authority in whose care the deceased child had been held challenged a decision by the coroner not to limit his inquiry to the last few days of the child’s life. The coroner had decided that he had an obligation to conduct a wider enquiry . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Scholes v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 17-Oct-2006
The deceased had committed suicide whilst in prison. The judge had requested that prison should be told of the risk of self harm. The mother appealed refusal of the judge to grant a judicial review of the Home Secretary’s refusal to grant, as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Children, Human Rights, Coroners

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.242192

Daniels v Griffiths: CA 27 Nov 1997

The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claim in defamation against the defendant. He was a prisoner convicted of rape and subject to life imprisonment. He sought parole, and said that the defendant had slandered him before the Parole Board.
Held: Parole Board proceedings are not part of any proceedings of a court, and so communications with the Parole Board are not protected by privilege from defamation actions. ‘It is clear . . that . . the defendant made a statement to the police to the effect that she was being harassed by the plaintiff and that a witness statement was taken from her. The contents of that witness statement and the details of any previous discussions leading to the taking of the witness statement would appear to be covered by the rule as to immunity.’

Judges:

Hirst LJ, Swinton Thomas LJ, Sir Brian Neill

Citations:

Gazette 17-Dec-1997, Times 02-Dec-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2836, [1998] EMLR 488

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1991 Sch 5 Para 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Grovit and others v Doctor and others HL 24-Apr-1997
The plaintiff began a defamation action against seven defendants. Each had admitted publication but pleaded justification. The claims against the fourth to seventh defendants were dismissed by consent, and the third had gone into liquidation. The . .

Cited by:

Cited – Buckley v Dalziel QBD 3-May-2007
There was a heated dispute between neighbours, culminating in some generous or perhaps over-generous pruning by the claimant of the defendant’s trees and shrubs on the boundaries. The defendants reported the matter to the police. Both Mr and Mrs . .
Cited – Westcott v Westcott CA 15-Jul-2008
The defendant was the claimant’s daughter in law. In the course of a bitter divorce she made allegations to the police which were investigated but did not lead to a prosecution. The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim for defamation on the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Prisons

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.143235

R and Scottish Prison Service: SIC 9 Jul 2012

Policy on family contact and access to postage stamps – Mr R requested from the Scottish Prison Service (the SPS) information about the SPS’s documented policies on family contact and access to postage stamps. The SPS replied, stating that it did not hold any information covered by the terms of Mr R’s request. The SPS provided some information which it did not consider to be policy, but which it believed to be relevant to Mr R’s request. Following a review, Mr R remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
After an investigation, the Commissioner found that the SPS had dealt with Mr R’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA, by giving notice that it did not hold any information falling within the scope of Mr R’s request. She did not require the SPS to take any action.

Citations:

[2012] ScotIC 115 – 2012)

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information, Prisons

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.466857

Stephenson, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: Admn 19 Nov 2010

The prisoner had been given papers to be used on his review of detention as a prisoner subject to indefinite imprisonment for public protection. They were returned, and further copies offered only on payment of fees for their copying.

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 3134 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.427014

Nilsen v United Kingdom: ECHR 9 Mar 2010

The applicant had been convicted of the most serious offences including several violent murders, and was held under a whole life tarriff. He wished to publish his autobiography from prison.
Held: The application was inadmissible. He had nothing serious to say in the public interest, although the policy applied in his case would not have prevented even him from engaging in such serious debate. To the contrary, the applicant wished to use his memoirs as a platform to seek to justify his conduct and denigrate people he disliked and his manuscript contained ‘several lurid and pornographic passages’ and highly personal details of a number of his offences. The applicant did not take issue with the description of his crimes as being ‘as grave and depraved as it is possible to imagine’. Even in such an extreme case, the Court was careful to distinguish between the causing of offence to members of the public, which would not be a sufficient justification for restricting article 10 rights, and ‘an affront to human dignity’, which would, that being itself a fundamental value in the Convention.

Citations:

[2010] ECHR 470

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

See Also – Dennis Andrew Nilsen v United Kingdom ECHR 27-Nov-2008
. .

Cited by:

Cited – British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Ahmad Admn 11-Jan-2012
The BBC wished to interview the prisoner who had been detained pending extradition to the US since 2004, and now challenged decision to refuse the interview.
Held: The claim succeeded. The decision was quashed and must be retaken. If ever any . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons, Media

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.450215

Corey, Re Judicial Review: QBNI 9 Jul 2012

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. Moreover, the allegations contained in the open material were not sufficiently specific to enable the appellant to provide his lawyers and the special advocate with information to refute them. The hearing which the commissioners had conducted into the appellant’s case constituted, on that account, a breach of the appellant’s ‘right to procedural fairness’ under article 5(4) of the Convention. However the court decided to remit the matter to the Commissioners with a direction that they reconsider the case and reach a decision in accordance with his ruling. The judge also decided to admit the appellant to bail pending reconsideration of his case by the Parole Commissioners.

Judges:

Treacy J

Citations:

[2012] NIQB 56

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5.4, Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978

Cited by:

Appeal from – Corey, Re Judicial Review CANI 21-Dec-2012
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 . .
At First Instance – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Northern Ireland, Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465500

Regina (on the Application of Cawser) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 5 Nov 2003

The claimant was serving a prison sentence for serious sexual offences. He would not be released until he had completed a sex offenders programme, but one was not made available, delaying his release.
Held: ‘The Secretary of State is not under an absolute duty to devise and provide courses for all who want them and, moreover, to do so early enough in the prisoner’s sentence to maximise his hope of release on or very soon after his tariff expiry date.’ The Secretary approach to allocating places on courses is not open to criticism. However, there was an underlying premise of the legislation that it was intended to work in practice to the following effect: ‘Procedures would be put in place (so far as not already in place) to ensure that initiatives, in particular courses in the prison, would be available to maximise the opportunity for lifers to demonstrate they were no longer a danger to the public by the time that their tariff expired or as soon as possible thereafter, so as to allow the lifer’s release once that was shown.’ and ‘Reducing the risk posed by lifers must be inherent in the legislation’s purpose, since otherwise the statutes would be indifferent to the imperative that treats imprisonment strictly and always as a last resort.’ and
‘there must be material at hand to show whether the prisoner’s further detention is necessary or not. Without current and periodic means of assessing the prisoner’s risk the regime cannot work as Parliament intended, and the only possible justification for the prisoner’s further detention is altogether absent. In that case the detention is arbitrary and unreasonable on first principles, and therefore unlawful’ and ‘Whether or not the prisoner ceases to present a danger cannot be a neutral consideration, in statute or policy. If it were, we would forego any claim to a rational and humane (and efficient) prison regime. Thus the existence of measures to allow and encourage the IPP prisoner to progress is as inherent in the justification of his continued detention as are the Parole Board reviews themselves; and without them that detention falls to be condemned as unlawful as surely as if there were no such reviews’

Judges:

Lord Justice Laws Lord Justice Simon Brown Lady Justice Arden

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1522, Times 25-Nov-2003, Gazette 02-Jan-2004, [2004] UKHRR 101

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 28

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina (Noorkoiv) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another CA 30-May-2002
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 . .
Cited – Regina v Home Secretary ex parte Gunn CA 2000
A challenge under article 5 to decisions about a prisoner’s treatment were misconceived in the context of the Secretary of State’s refusal to transfer a prisoner to open conditions with a view to improving his prospects of release: ‘[Article 5(4)] . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Williams v The Secretary of State for the Home Office CA 17-Apr-2002
The applicant was a post-tariff discretionary life prisoner, applying for a change in his security classification. He sought disclosure of his security report which was denied by the respondent. He alleged a breach of his human rights.
Held: . .
Cited – Regina (Hirst) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 8-Mar-2001
The prisoner had been re-categorised and transferred to a higher category prison.
Held: A life sentence serving prisoner, who had served the tariff period, and was moving into the period of discretionary detention, was entitled to be informed . .
Cited – A v The Scottish Ministers PC 15-Oct-2001
(Scotland) The power to detain a person suffering from a mental illness, in order to ensure the safety of the public, and even though there was no real possibility of treatment of the mental condition in hospital, was not a disproportionate . .
Cited – Regina v Lichniak HL 25-Nov-2002
The appellants challenged the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment imposed on them on their convictions for murder. They said it was an infringement of their Human Rights, being arbitrary and disproportionate.
Held: The case followed on . .
Cited – Spence, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 23-May-2003
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 . .
Cited – Regina (Cavanagh) v Home Secretary Admn 2002
There is nothing irrational in denying enhanced status and privileges to prisoners who refuse to undertake treatment courses.
Held: ‘There is, to my mind, nothing unfair or inappropriate in requiring a sex offender, guilty of serious sexual . .
Cited – 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. . .
Cited – Van Droogenbroeck v Belgium ECHR 24-Jun-1982
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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – Secretary of State for Justice v Walker; Same v James CA 1-Feb-2008
The claimant had been sentenced to a short period of imprisonment but with an indeterminate term until he demonstrated that it was no longer necessary for the protection of the public. He complained that the term having expired, no opportunity had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.187503

Corey, Re Judicial Review: CANI 21 Dec 2012

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 Commissioners in breach.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The material provided to the appellant and his advisers was sufficient to allow him to give effective instructions to those representing him. There was therefore no breach of article 5(4) of the Convention.

Judges:

Morgan LCJ

Citations:

[2012] NICA 57

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5.4, Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001 9(4)

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Citing:

Appeal from – Corey, Re Judicial Review QBNI 9-Jul-2012
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. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.468849

RM, Re Judicial Review v The Scottish Ministers: SCS 15 Mar 2011

The reclaimer, detained under the 1995 Act, sought judicial review of the respondent’s failure to lay regulations as required before an appeal could be made.

Citations:

[2011] ScotCS CSIH – 19, [2011] CSIH 19, 2011 GWD 12-268, 2012 SC 397, 2011 SLT 787

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Prisons, Health

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.430619

Murray v The Parole Board Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 6 Nov 2003

The applicant had been convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He had twice previously been released on licence and had his licence revoked. His tarriff had expired The period between reviews of his detention had been two years, but a new system of 15 month intervals was being introduced. He complained that the period between reviews was insufficently frequent, and infringed his human right.
Held: The new system was required to comply with Stafford.

Judges:

Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Sedley Mr Justice Munby

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1561, Times 12-Nov-2003, Gazette 08-Jan-2004

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Hirst v United Kingdom ECHR 24-Jul-2001
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 . .
Cited – Herczegfalvy v Austria ECHR 24-Sep-1992
The applicant was detained in an institution for mentally deranged offenders. While so detained he was subjected to the forcible administration of food and neuroleptics and to handcuffing to a security bed. He complained of violation of his Article . .
Cited – 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 . .
Appeal from – Murray, Regina (on the Application Of) v Parole Board and Another Admn 21-Feb-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.187563

Razvyazkin v Russia: ECHR 3 Jul 2012

The Court discussed proportionality in respect of the solitary confinement of a prisoner under Article 8: ‘Given that solitary confinement is a serious restriction of a prisoner’s rights which involves inherent risks to the prisoner, the level of actual or potential harm must be at least equally serious and uniquely capable of being addressed by this means. This is reflected, for example, in most countries having solitary confinement as a sanction only for the most serious disciplinary offences, but the principle must be respected in all uses of the measure. The longer the measure is continued, the stronger must be the reason for it and the more must be done to ensure that it achieves its purpose.’

Citations:

13579/09 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction)), [2012] ECHR 1364

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Shahid v Scottish Ministers (Scotland) SC 14-Oct-2015
The appellant convicted of a racially-aggravated vicious murder. Since conviction he had spent almost five years in segregation from other prisoners. The appellant now alleged that some very substantial periods of segregation had been in breach of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462103

Tymoshenko v Ukraine: ECHR 31 May 2012

Citations:

49872/11 (Communicated Case), [2012] ECHR 1160

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

See Also – Tymoshenko v Ukraine ECHR 3-Jul-2012
. .
See Also – Tymoshenko v Ukraine (Legal Summary) ECHR 30-Apr-2013
ECHR Article 5-1
Lawful arrest or detention
Pre-trial detention for allegedly contemptuous behaviour to trial court: violation
Article 18
Restrictions for unauthorised purposes
See Also – Tymoshenko v Ukraine ECHR 30-Apr-2013
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.461995

FGP v Serco Plc and Another: Admn 5 Jul 2012

The claimant said that whilst he had been being taken from an immigration detention centre to hospital, he had been restrained by various forms of handcuffs. He said that had been unlawful.
Held: The claim failed: ‘ the recommendation that there should only be handcuffing in exceptional circumstances is to apply too high a test. Those making the risk assessment have to decide whether handcuffing is reasonably necessary and so proportionate having regard to all relevant circumstances, which will include the insecure nature of the hospital. The claimant had criminal convictions and the most recent for affray indicated that there had been violence or a threat of violence to others. In addition, he had a history which indicated that he was liable to react to pressure in a disruptive fashion and there was also the possibility of self harm. It was known that he was most anxious to avoid return to Algeria. One of the main reasons for his detention was concern that if not detained he would abscond.
In my judgment, what was known of the claimant justified the assessment that he should be restrained during the hospital visit. Having seen and heard the two witnesses who gave evidence, I am satisfied that they did consider in a proper fashion whether restraint was needed.’

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1804 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Home Office Detention Services Order 1/2002, European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Faizovas, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 13-May-2009
. .
Cited – C, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 28-Jul-2008
The court was asked as to what methods of physical restraint were proper in institutions accommodating youths in custody.
Held: The Court had been wrong not to quash the amended rules on the grounds of procedural breaches. The amended rules . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.461953

Scoppola v Italy (No 3): ECHR 18 Jan 2011

(referral to the grand chamber)

Judges:

F Tulkens P

Citations:

126/05 French Text, [2011] ECHR 2417

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

See Also – Scoppola v Italy (No 3) ECHR 22-May-2012
(Grand Chamber) A prisoner serving a sentence of 30 years imprisonment for murder, attempted murder and other offences object to his disenfranchisement under Italian law. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Elections, Prisons

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460678

Scoppola v Italy (No 3): ECHR 22 May 2012

(Grand Chamber) A prisoner serving a sentence of 30 years imprisonment for murder, attempted murder and other offences object to his disenfranchisement under Italian law.

Citations:

126/05, [2012] ECHR 868

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

See Also – Scoppola v Italy (No 3) ECHR 18-Jan-2011
(referral to the grand chamber) . .

Cited by:

Cited – Chester, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 16-Oct-2013
The two applicants were serving life sentences for murder. Each sought damages for the unlawful withdrawal of their rights to vote in elections, and the failure of the British parliament to take steps to comply with the judgment.
Held: The . .
Cited – Moohan and Another v The Lord Advocate SC 17-Dec-2014
The petitioners, convicted serving prisoners, had sought judicial review of the refusal to allow them to vote in the Scottish Referendum on Independence. The request had been refused in the Outer and Inner Houses.
Held: (Kerr, Wilson JJSC . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Elections, Prisons

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460181

M, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department: Admn 2 Dec 2010

Judges:

Sir Anthony May P

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 3541 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Haward and others v Fawcetts HL 1-Mar-2006
The claimant sought damages from his accountants, claiming negligence. The accountants pleaded limitation. They had advised him in connection with an investment in a company which investment went wrong.
Held: It was argued that the limitation . .
Cited – AM and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others CA 17-Mar-2009
The claimants complained of their detention after the disorder at Harmondsworth Immigration Detention Centre.
Held: The investigation of allegations of inhuman or degrading treatment related to those in the custody of the State, though it was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.459755

JL, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 24 Jul 2007

The court was asked to order a public enquiry into an attempted suicide in prison. Waller LJ was anxious about the task of defining suicide and near suicide: ‘I am clear that the simple fact of a death or serious injury of a person in custody gives rise to an obligation on the State to conduct the enhanced type of investigation. The extent of the investigation will depend on the circumstances . . As regards the nature of the investigation it seems to me that a death or near death in custody ipso facto means that the State must commence an investigation by a person independent of those implicated in the facts. The extent to which there must then be some further inquiry in the nature of a public hearing in which the next of kin or injured person can play a part will depend on the circumstances. In the case of a death there will be an inquest, and the coroner may have to decide whether the circumstances are such as to require something [further]. In cases of serious injury the nature of the further inquiry necessary will depend on the facts as discovered by the independent investigator.’

Judges:

Waller LJ, Maurice Kay LJ, Wilson LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 767, [2008] 1 WLR 158, [2007] Inquest LR 202, [2007] HRLR 39, [2007] ACD 95

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – JL, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 1-Nov-2006
Duty to investigate attempted suicide in prison. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – JL, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice; Regina (L (A Patient)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 26-Nov-2008
The prisoner was left with serious injury after attempting suicide in prison. He said that there was a human rights duty to hold an investigation into the circumstances leading up to this.
Held: There existed a similar duty to hold an enhanced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights, Coroners

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.258363

Scordino v Italy (No. 2): ECHR 15 Jul 2004

Citations:

36815/97, [2004] ECHR 356

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

See Also – Scordino v Italy ECHR 29-Jul-2004
(French Text) Grand Chamber. In the context of unreasonable delay in violation of article 6(1), there was a strong but rebuttable presumption that excessively long proceedings would occasion non-pecuniary damage. . .
See Also – Scordino v Italy (3) ECHR 17-May-2005
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of P1-1; Just satisfaction reserved. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.230553

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte H and Others, Regina v Same ex parte Hickey: CA 29 Jul 1994

A discretionary life prisoner who had been transferred to a mental hospital is not automatically eligible for a certificate under the section. The right conferred on a discretionary life prisoner by section 34 of the 1991 Act did not extend to those who were also detained under the MHA by reason of transfer and restriction directions given by the Home Secretary under sections 47 and 49 respectively. ‘I [do not] see anything unjust or illogical in two separate codes existing which cannot be triggered simultaneously, but each of which at an appropriate time, depending on the circumstances, can be triggered so as to achieve a judicial hearing. ‘ The Home Secretary’s powers to refer a case back to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) was an integral part of the just functioning of the overall process of criminal justice.

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ

Citations:

Times 29-Jul-1994, [1995] QB 43, [1995] 1 WLR 734

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1991 31 Sch 12 9(3), Mental Health Act 1983 47 49

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Hickey and Others QBD 28-Oct-1993
Parole provisions are to apply to life prisoners who had been transferred transferred to a mental hospital. . .
Cited – Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Oct-1990
The applicants, discretionary life prisoners, complained of a violation on the ground that they were not able to have the continued lawfulness of their detention decided by a court at reasonable intervals throughout their imprisonment.
Held: A . .

Cited by:

Confirmed – 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 . .
Cited – P, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 11-Dec-2003
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.
Cited – Roberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Prisons

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.87747

Watkins v Secretary of State for The Home Departmentand others: CA 20 Jul 2004

The claimant complained that prison officers had abused the system of reading his solicitor’s correspondence whilst he was in prison. The defendant argued that there was no proof of damage.
Held: Proof of damage was not necessary in the tort of misfeasance in public office. The prisoner would be awarded andpound;5.00 nominal damages against the first defendant, but the issue of the claim for exemplary damages against the individual officers was remitted to the judge. The behaviour infringed the claimant’s basic constitutional right of access to the courts: ‘If there is a right which may be identified as a constitutional right, then there may be a cause of action for an infringement of that right without proof of special damage, provided that there is something more than the mere infringement.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Clarke Lord Justice Laws Lord Justice Brooke

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 966, Times 05-Aug-2004, [2005] QB 883

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ashby v White KBD 1703
Mr Ashby a burgess of the borough of Aylesbury was deprived of his right to vote by the misfeasance of a returning officer.
Held: The majority rejected the claim.
Lord Holt CJ (dissenting) An action would lie: ‘If the plaintiff has a . .
Cited – Three Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of The Bank of England (No 3) HL 22-Mar-2001
Misfeasance in Public Office – Recklessness
The bank sought to strike out the claim alleging misfeasance in public office in having failed to regulate the failed bank, BCCI.
Held: Misfeasance in public office might occur not only when a company officer acted to injure a party, but also . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State Home Department, ex parte Leech (No 2) CA 20-May-1993
Prison rules were ultra vires in so far as they provided for reading letters between prisoners and their legal advisers. Every citizen has a right of unimpeded access to the court. A prisoner’s unimpeded access to a solicitor for the purpose of . .
Cited – Regina v Lord Chancellor ex parte John Witham Admn 7-Mar-1997
If subordinate legislation cannot be construed in a way that makes it compatible with fundamental rights, it will be declared ultra vires. Rules which disallowed exemptions from court fees to a litigant in person on income support were invalid. They . .
Cited – Embrey v Owen 1851
Parke B said: ‘It was very ably argued before us by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs had a right to the full flow of the water in its natural course and abundance, as an incident to their property in the land through which . .
Cited – Calveley v Chief Constable of the Merseyside Police HL 1989
Police officers brought an action in negligence against a Chief Constable on the ground that disciplinary proceedings against them had been negligently conducted. They claimed that the investigating officers had negligently failed to conduct the . .
Cited – Savill v Roberts 1741
The plaintiff, Roberts, was entitled to recover andpound;11 damages in proceedings for malicious prosecution, the defendant having maliciously caused Roberts to be indicted for causing a riot, and Roberts having been acquitted. The andpound;11 was . .
Cited – Quartz Hill Consolidated Gold Mining Co v Eyre CA 26-Jun-1883
The court considered whether an action lay without proof of special damage for maliciously presenting a winding up petition.
Held: There was. Though there was no general cause of action for maliciously bringing civil proceedings without . .
Cited – Fitzgerald v Firbank 1897
The owner of a right of fishing asserted a cause of action without proof of special damage against someone who had polluted the river in which the right was exercised.
Held: A right of fishing was of such a nature that a person who enjoyed it . .
Cited – Jones v Jones HL 1916
The House described the different origins of libel and slander. Libel was regarded by the Court of Star Chamber not merely as a crime punishable as such, but also as a wrong carrying the penalty of general damages, and this remedy was carried . .
Cited – Neville v London Express Newspaper HL 1919
The question was whether, in order to recover damages for the tort which existed, it was necessary to show specific loss.
Held: An action for damages for maintenance will not lie in the absence of proof of special damage. . .
Cited – Nicholas v Ely Beet Sugar Factory Ltd CA 1936
The plaintiff owned several fisheries and sought damages after the defendant polluted the riner. He was unable to prove any actual loss.
Held: Disturbance of a several fishery was an invasion of a legal right, and in such a case the injury to . .
Cited – The Owners of the Steamship Mediana v The Owners, Master and Crew of the Lightship Comet HL 1900
A lightship was damaged by negligence. The plaintiff harbour board kept a ship ready for emergencies, and consequently the damaged ship was replaced with the spare while she was being repaired. The question was whether the claimant could recover . .
Cited – Kuddus v Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary HL 7-Jun-2001
There is no rule of law preventing the award of exemplary damages against police officers. The fact that no case of misfeasance in public office had led to such awards before 1964, did not prevent such an award now. Although damages are generally . .
Cited – Thompson v Commissioner of Police of Metropolis; Hsu v Same CA 20-Feb-1997
CS Damages of 200,000 pounds by way of exemplary damages had been awarded against the police for unlawful arrest and assault.
Held: The court gave a guideline maximum pounds 50,000 award against police for . .
Cited – Huckle v Money 1763
An action for false imprisonment brought by a journeyman printer who apparently had played no part in printing the famous issue No. 45 of ‘The North Briton ‘ but had been arrested under a warrant issued by a Secretary of State authorising a King’s . .
Cited – Rookes v Barnard (No 1) HL 21-Jan-1964
The court set down the conditions for the award of exemplary damages. There are two categories. The first is where there has been oppressive or arbitrary conduct by a defendant. Cases in the second category are those in which the defendant’s conduct . .
Cited – Owen and Smith (trading as Nuagin Car Service) v Reo Motors (Britain) Ltd CA 1934
The court made an award of andpound;100 exemplary damages . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Watkins v Home Office and others HL 29-Mar-2006
The claimant complained of misfeasance in public office by the prisons for having opened and read protected correspondence whilst he was in prison. The respondent argued that he had suffered no loss. The judge had found that bad faith was . .
Cited – Ashley and Another v Sussex Police CA 27-Jul-2006
The deceased was shot by police officers raiding his flat in 1998. The claimants sought damages for his estate. They had succeeded in claiming damages for false imprisonment, but now appealed dismissal of their claim for damages for assault and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Torts – Other

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.199273

Regina v Sharkey: CACD 10 Nov 1999

Where an offender had been released from prison under licence, but committed a further offence whilst released on licence, and had already been recalled to prison by way of his licence being revoked under section 39, that did not prevent a court dealing with the offender also making an order under s40 for the remainder of the original term to be served consecutively if that was appropriate. The sole concern of the Parole Board is with risk, and it has no role at all in the imposition of punishment.

Citations:

Times 10-Nov-1999, Gazette 10-Nov-1999, [2000] 1 Cr App R 409, [2000] 1 WLR 160

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1991 39 40

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Stocker CACD 20-Jan-2003
Whilst released on licence from prison, the defendant committed further related offences. On sentencing the judge erred in calculating the amount of time to be served for the breach of the licence. Having been recalled, the time served between . .
Cited – Regina v Parole Board ex parte Smith, Regina v Parole Board ex parte West (Conjoined Appeals) HL 27-Jan-2005
Each defendant challenged the way he had been treated on revocation of his parole licence, saying he should have been given the opportunity to make oral representations.
Held: The prisoners’ appeals were allowed.
Lord Bingham stated: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.85553

Regina v Ellingham: CACD 28 Jan 1999

Where a defendant is convicted of bringing heroin into prison to supply prisoners, the offence is clearly very serious, and a previous lack of convictions can have only a limited mitigatory effect.

Citations:

Times 22-Mar-1999

Statutes:

Misuse of Drugs Act 1981

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing, Prisons

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.85246

King, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 9 Feb 2016

This appeal concerns the lawfulness of the guidance given by the Parole Board to its panels in December 2013 as to the test to be applied by panels of the Board when considering whether to direct the release after recall to custody of a prisoner serving a determinate sentence of imprisonment.

Judges:

Lord Dyson MR, Tomlinson, Sales LJJ

Citations:

[2016] EWCA Civ 51, [2016] WLR(D) 66, [2016] 1 WLR 1947

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.559585

Neshkov And Others v Bulgaria: ECHR 27 Jan 2015

The applicants alleged, inter alia, that the conditions of their detention in various correctional facilities in Bulgaria had been or were inhuman and degrading. Mr Neshkov in addition alleged that he had not had effective domestic remedies in that respect.

Judges:

Ineta Ziemele, P

Citations:

36925/10 – Chamber Judgment, [2015] ECHR 77

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3 46

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

Legal Summary – Neshkov And Others v Bulgaria ECHR 27-Jan-2015
ECHR Article 46
Pilot judgment
General measures
Respondent State required to take general measures in respect of conditions of detention and the lack of effective domestic remedies
Article . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.541934

Johnson, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another: CA 9 May 2007

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 delay of eight and a half months. If on remittal, he could show that he had been detained longer than he would otherwise have been detained then compensation may be due.

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 427, Times 30-May-2007, [2007] 1 WLR 1990, [2007] 3 All ER 532

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5.4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.251770

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte McAvoy: CA 3 Dec 1997

A prisoner had the right to know the gist (though not the full contents) of reports used in deciding on a review of his security status. (Lord Woolf MR) ‘For my part, I accept that it is desirable, when something has the impact which being placed in category A has on a prisoner, that the approach should be to ensure, so far as practical, that fairness is achieved. However, in considering whether in any particular situation the procedure which is adopted is fair or unfair, one has to reach a decision not only in the light of the situation of the prisoner, but also in the light of the practical considerations which must apply to the proper running of a prison. The very fact that we are talking about prisoners who have been categorised as category A indicates that they are among those who are the most dangerous within the system. There can be considerable difficulty within the prison service in the managing of those prisoners . .
. . in the end it seems to me that the question this court has to answer is whether the procedure which is in fact adopted on the review of categorisation is one which complies with the requirements of fairness, having regard to the nature of the exercise being carried out. As to that, I have no doubt, having seen the material in this case, that the way the process was carried out in this case was perfectly satisfactory and perfectly fair.
I can see difficulties for the prison services in adopting the approach which the applicant would urge upon them of normally disclosing all the material which is relied upon and, whenever it was appropriate to do so, seeking public interest immunity. A procedure of that nature seems to me to be inconsistent in that it is too formal for the sort of administrative decision which is being reached in relation to categorisation.
The House of Lords in Doody’s case [1994] 1 AC 531 endorsed an approach which involved providing the gist of the material relied upon rather than the actual material itself. It seems to me that in a great many cases the interests of a prisoner will be fully protected if the procedure envisaged by Lord Mustill in Doody’s case is adopted. In my judgment the procedure which is being followed at present by the Prison Service in relation to the review of the category in which a prisoner is placed accords with Doody’s case. That is a perfectly satisfactory procedure, particularly and most importantly because, where appropriate, the Secretary of State or those responsible for the review in practice are prepared to reconsider, in the circumstances of any particular case, whether additional information should be made available.
In my judgment what is done in pursuance of that policy provides sufficient safeguards for a person in the position of the applicant. It does not seem to me that he should receive either the actual information or the names of those providing that information. It is sufficient if the gist of the reports plus any special information is provided to him.’

Judges:

Lord Woolf MR

Citations:

Gazette 08-Jan-1998, Times 12-Dec-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2888, [1998] 1 WLR 790

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody and Others HL 25-Jun-1993
A mandatory lifer is to be permitted to suggest the period of actual sentence to be served. The Home Secretary must give reasons for refusing a lifer’s release. What fairness requires in any particular case is ‘essentially an intuitive judgment’, . .
Approved – Regina v Secretary of State Home Department, Ex Parte Duggan QBD 9-Dec-1993
A High Security prisoner is to know the gist of report and reasons for his categorisation: ‘on the first and subsequent annual reviews, fairness, in my view, requires that the gist of the reports be revealed in order to give the opportunity for . .

Cited by:

Cited – Lord, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 1-Sep-2003
The claimant was a category A prisoner serving a sentence of life imprisonment for murder. He sought the reasons for his categorisation as a Class A prisoner. Unhappy at the disclosure made, he sought information under the 1998 Act. It was argued . .
Cited – Roberts, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 12-Mar-2004
The claimant complained at a decision not to reduce his Category A status to that of a category B prisoner. He continued to maintain his innocence of the murders for which he had been convicted. He was therefore ineligible to take part in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 17 October 2022; Ref: scu.143287

Jarvis, Regina (on the Application of) v Parole Board: Admn 31 Mar 2004

The prisoner challenged his continued detention after release on licemce and recall. He was subject to an extended sentence. He submitted that the objective of the sentence was that following a period to be served in custody he should be released and rehabilitated in the community under the extended period of his licence. He submitted that in passing the sentence that he did the trial judge was making an assessment of the risk that the claimant presented and that the Parole Board should only have refused to direct his release where there had been a demonstrable increase in risk leading to recall, and where such increase could not be managed in the community, as the sentencing judge had intended.
Held: Robert Owen J said: ‘The argument that the approach of the Parole Board was fundamentally flawed is misconceived. There was no requirement to carry out a comparative evaluation of the risk existing at the point at which sentence was passed and that existing at the date of the hearing before the Parole Board. The Board was obliged to consider whether, in the light of all the evidence placed before it, it was satisfied that it was no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the claimant be confined. As Elias J observed in paragraph 34 in Sim, where a prisoner on licence is detained following breach of the terms of the licence, or because other information raises fresh fears that he may commit further offences, there is no severing of the causal link between the sentence for the original conviction and the subsequent detention.

Judges:

Robert Owen J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 872 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Chater, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another Admn 2-Aug-2010
The claimant sought judicial review of his treatment after recall to prison from licence. He had a history of the sexual abuse of children. A police surveillance report had been rejected by the Parole Board, but they had nevertheless continued his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 15 October 2022; Ref: scu.196096

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Creamer and Scholey: QBD 1992

‘A prisoner’s right to make representations is largely valueless unless he knows the case against him and secret, unchallengeable reports which may contain damaging inaccuracies and which result in continuing loss of liberty are, or should be, anathema in a civilised, democratic society.’

Judges:

Rose LJ

Citations:

Unreported, 1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Lord, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 1-Sep-2003
The claimant was a category A prisoner serving a sentence of life imprisonment for murder. He sought the reasons for his categorisation as a Class A prisoner. Unhappy at the disclosure made, he sought information under the 1998 Act. It was argued . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 14 October 2022; Ref: scu.186288

Regina (CD and ADR) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: QBD 17 Jan 2003

The applicant challenged the decision to separate her from her child whilst she was in prison.
Held: such a separation engaged her article 8 Human Rights, and she must be allowed representation when a decision was made. The Prison Service should call in appropriate experts in deciding what were the child’s needs, the effect of separation, and the proportionality of the intended act to the need.

Judges:

Maurice Kay J

Citations:

Times 27-Jan-2003, [2003] EWHC 155 (Admin), [2003] 1 FLR 979

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Begum (otherwise SB), Regina (on the Application of) v Denbigh High School HL 22-Mar-2006
The student, a Muslim wished to wear a full Islamic dress, the jilbab, but this was not consistent with the school’s uniform policy. She complained that this interfered with her right to express her religion.
Held: The school’s appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Children, Human Rights

Updated: 13 October 2022; Ref: scu.178704

Lord, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 1 Sep 2003

The claimant was a category A prisoner serving a sentence of life imprisonment for murder. He sought the reasons for his categorisation as a Class A prisoner. Unhappy at the disclosure made, he sought information under the 1998 Act. It was argued that disclosure beyong ‘gist’ reports would threaten the system of categorisation, which was intended for the protection of the public.
Held: The prisoner should see ‘the gist of the reports’, not the gist of the Governor or Deputy Governor’s overall assessment or recommendation, but the gist of the reports – all of them. Redacting information to this extent made it impossible for him to prepare any answer. The prisoner had been treated shabbily. ‘Likely’ in section 29(1) connotes a degree of probability where there is a very significant and weighty chance of prejudice to the identified public interests. The proper balance called for by section 7(4)(b) between the legitimate interests of the prisoner and of the authors of the reports can be held by a system of targeted non-disclosure.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Munby

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 2073 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Data Protection Act 1998 7 29(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody and Others HL 25-Jun-1993
A mandatory lifer is to be permitted to suggest the period of actual sentence to be served. The Home Secretary must give reasons for refusing a lifer’s release. What fairness requires in any particular case is ‘essentially an intuitive judgment’, . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State Home Department, Ex Parte Duggan QBD 9-Dec-1993
A High Security prisoner is to know the gist of report and reasons for his categorisation: ‘on the first and subsequent annual reviews, fairness, in my view, requires that the gist of the reports be revealed in order to give the opportunity for . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte McAvoy CA 3-Dec-1997
A prisoner had the right to know the gist (though not the full contents) of reports used in deciding on a review of his security status. (Lord Woolf MR) ‘For my part, I accept that it is desirable, when something has the impact which being placed in . .
Cited – Williams v The Secretary of State for the Home Office CA 17-Apr-2002
The applicant was a post-tariff discretionary life prisoner, applying for a change in his security classification. He sought disclosure of his security report which was denied by the respondent. He alleged a breach of his human rights.
Held: . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Creamer and Scholey QBD 1992
‘A prisoner’s right to make representations is largely valueless unless he knows the case against him and secret, unchallengeable reports which may contain damaging inaccuracies and which result in continuing loss of liberty are, or should be, . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Anufrijeva HL 26-Jun-2003
The appellant challenged the withdrawal of her benefits payments. She had applied for asylum, and been granted reduced rate income support. A decision was made refusing her claim, but that decision was, by policy, not communicated to her for several . .
Cited – Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers plc CA 14-Oct-2002
The newspaper appealed against a finding that it had infringed the claimant’s privacy by publishing a photograph of her leaving a drug addiction clinic.
Held: The claimant had courted publicity, and denied an involvement in drugs. The defence . .
Cited – Three Rivers District Council and Others, HM Treasury, v HM Treasury, The Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No 4) CA 7-Aug-2002
The claimants had suffered having lost deposits with the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. They claimed their losses from the respondents as regulators of the bank, for negligence and misfeasance in public office. The action was based upon . .
Cited – In re H and R (Minors) (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) HL 14-Dec-1995
Evidence allowed – Care Application after Abuse
Children had made allegations of serious sexual abuse against their step-father. He was acquitted at trial, but the local authority went ahead with care proceedings. The parents appealed against a finding that a likely risk to the children had still . .
Cited – Regina (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 23-May-2001
A prison policy requiring prisoners not to be present when their property was searched and their mail was examined was unlawful. The policy had been introduced after failures in search procedures where officers had been intimidated by the presence . .
Cited – P v Wozencroft (Expert Evidence: Data Protection) FD 2002
The court discussed the discretion given under the section: ‘I remind myself, however, that under s 7(9) the claimant would have had to establish that the defendant had failed to comply with a request for disclosure in contravention of s 7(1), and, . .
Cited – Durant v Financial Services Authority CC 24-Oct-2002
(Edmonton County Court) The claimant sought disclosure under the Act from the FSA of its file relating to his dealings with Barclays Bank. Though the claim generally failed, the court considered how it would have exercised his discretion under . .

Cited by:

Cited – Durant v Financial Services Authority CA 8-Dec-2003
The appellant had been unsuccessful in litigation against his former bank. The Financial Services Authority had subsequently investigated his complaint against the bank. Using section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998, he requested disclosure of his . .
Cited – Roberts, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 12-Mar-2004
The claimant complained at a decision not to reduce his Category A status to that of a category B prisoner. He continued to maintain his innocence of the murders for which he had been convicted. He was therefore ineligible to take part in . .
Cited – John Connor Press Associates Ltd v The Information Commissioner IT 24-Jan-2006
. .
Cited – Department for Work and Pensions v The Information Commissioner and Another CA 27-Jul-2016
The applicant sought disclosure of certain organisations who had provided placements for those seeking work. They said that in the past disclosure had led to adverse publicity for those organisations, and refused disclosure under the department’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Information

Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.186261

In Reclaiming Motion By Brown v The Parole Board for Scotland and The Scottish Ministers: SCS 31 Jul 2015

(Extra Division Inner House) The scope of this appeal relates to the impact of article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’) in circumstances where the petitioner and reclaimer (‘the reclaimer’) is serving an extended sentence under and in terms of section 210A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. The reclaimer contends that he has not been given certain courses in prison recommended by the first respondents. The main disputed issues are (1) whether in the circumstances of this case there is a breach of article 5; and (2) if there is a breach what is the remedy in damages afforded in just satisfaction.

Judges:

Lord Menzies, Lady Clark of Calton, Lord McGhie

Citations:

[2015] ScotCS CSIH – 59, 2015 GWD 25-441, 2015 Rep LR 123, 2016 SC 19, 2015 SLT 568

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5, Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 210A

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Appeal from – Brown v The Parole Board for Scotland, The Scottish Ministers and Another SC 1-Nov-2017
The court was asked whether the duty under article 5 to provide prisoners with a real opportunity for rehabilitation applied to prisoners serving extended sentences. The prisoner was subject to an extended sentence, but had been released on licence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.551713

James, Wells and Lee v The United Kingdom: ECHR 18 Sep 2012

ECHR Article 5-1
Deprivation of liberty
Failure to provide the rehabilitative courses to prisoners which were necessary for their release: violation
Facts – By virtue of section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, indeterminate sentences for the public protection were introduced. Like sentences of life imprisonment, these required the direction of the Parole Board in order for a prisoner to be released. A minimum term which had to be served before a prisoner could be released, known as the ‘tariff’, was fixed by the sentencing judge. The three applicants, who had been sentenced pursuant to this Act, complained that while in detention they were not provided with the opportunity to complete the instructional courses that the Parole Board considered necessary for their rehabilitation. The applicants were detained in small local prisons, and due to resource constraints were unable to transfer to prisons where the relevant courses were available. This led the Parole Board to consider that they presented a continued risk to the public and were unsuitable for release after the completion of their tariff.
Law
Article 5-1: In considering the legality of the post-tariff detention of the applicants the Court examined whether there was a causal link between the continuing detention and the original sentence; whether the detention complied with domestic law; and whether it was free from arbitrariness. On the point of causality it was clear that the indeterminate sentences were imposed on the applicants because they were considered, albeit by the operation of a statutory assumption, to pose a risk to the public. Therefore there was a sufficient causal link between the convictions and the deprivations of liberty at issue. Further, the Court was satisfied that the applicants’ post-tariff detention was based on their ‘conviction’ for the purposes of Article 5-1 (a) of the Convention and that there was compliance with domestic law.
In considering arbitrariness certain principles were relevant. First, that detention will be ‘arbitrary’ where, despite complying with the letter of national law, there has been an element of bad faith or deception on the part of the authorities. Second, both the order to detain and the execution of the detention must genuinely conform with the purpose of the restrictions permitted by the relevant sub-paragraph of Article 5-1. Third, there must be some relationship between the ground of permitted deprivation of liberty relied on and the place and conditions of detention; and fourth, this relationship must be proportionate.
The Court then considered the arbitrariness of the detention in the present case as a whole by reference to these considerations. It began by examining the lack of judicial discretion in sentencing. Under the scheme as it was first enacted and brought into force, the IPP sentence was mandatory where a future risk existed. The Court noted that restrictions on judicial discretion in sentencing do not per se render any ensuing detention arbitrary. However, they may be a relevant factor, and in such situations there is often an even greater need to ensure that there is a genuine correlation between the aim of the detention and the detention itself. Secondly, the Court had regard to the purpose of the detention. It was clear that a central purpose of the IPP sentences imposed was the protection of the public. However it could be seen from the debates on the drafting of the relevant legislation that an implied purpose of the detention was rehabilitation. This was further reflected in the Secretary of State’s published policy at the time, and was clear from certain rulings of the domestic courts in the area. Also, it is to be presumed that States intend to comply with their international obligations when introducing legislation. In the present case, the relevant obligations made it clear that an essential aim of imprisonment was social rehabilitation.
Lastly, the Court noted the deficiencies in the rehabilitative process in the present case. Due to the unavailability of rehabilitative courses, for a significant period the applicants did not have the opportunity to reduce the risk they posed to the public as assessed by the Parole Board, which was necessary in order to shorten the length of their post-tariff detention. In considering the detrimental impact that this had on the applicants, it was acknowledged that there was a substantial danger inherent in ordering the release of a prisoner while they still posed an appreciable risk to the public. However, such a danger did not seem to be present in the case of the applicants. The assessment of the danger they posed was largely a product of statutory assumption, and it was far from clear that the sentencing judges concerned would have imposed an IPP sentence had they enjoyed the judicial discretion available to them under new amended legislation.
In applying the above considerations, the Court held that while indeterminate detention for the public protection is permissible in certain circumstances, where a government seeks to rely solely on the risk posed to the public by offenders in order to justify their continued detention, regard must be had to the need to encourage the rehabilitation of those offenders. In the applicants’ cases, this meant that they were required to be provided with reasonable opportunities to undertake courses aimed at helping them to address their offending behaviour and the risks they posed. In such situations, any restrictions or delays encountered as a result of resource considerations must be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, and a reasonable balance must be struck between the need to provide appropriate conditions of detention in a timely fashion and the efficient management of public funds. In striking this balance, particular weight must be given to the prisoner’s right to liberty, bearing in mind that a significant delay in access to treatment is likely to result in a prolongation of detention. Therefore, following the expiry of the applicants’ tariff periods and until steps were taken to progress them through the prison system with a view to providing them with access to appropriate rehabilitative courses, their detention was arbitrary and consequently unlawful within the meaning of Article 5-1.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 5-4: The second and third applicants further alleged that even if they had succeeded in the challenge to their detention they were not been able to secure their release as a result of the provisions of primary legislation. Article 5-4 is lex specialis in this context. The Court noted that it was open to the applicants to commence judicial review proceedings in order to challenge the failure to provide the relevant courses. Both applicants did so and were transferred to a facility where they could participate in the courses necessary to secure their release.
Conclusion: no violation (six votes to one).
The Court also considered that the issues raised by the applicants under Article 5-4 relating to the lack of courses had already been examined in the context of Article 5-1, and that the complaint under this Article gave rise to no separate issue.
Article 41: In respect of non-pecuniary damage the Court awarded the first applicant EUR 3,000, the second applicant EUR 6,200 and the third applicant EUR 8,000.
(See also Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13229/03, 29 January 2008, Information Note no. 104; M. v. Germany, no. 19359/04, Information Note no. 125; Grosskopf v. Germany, no. 24478/03, 21 October 2010)
The court disagreed with the HL in saying that the purposes of the 2003 Act did not include rehabilitation: ‘The court is . . satisfied that in cases concerning indeterminate sentences of imprisonment for the protection of the public, a real opportunity for rehabilitation is a necessary element of any part of the detention which is to be justified solely by reference to public protection. In the case of the IPP sentence, it is in any event clear that the legislation was premised on the understanding that rehabilitative treatment would be made available to those prisoners on whom an IPP sentence was imposed, even if this was not an express objective of the legislation itself. Indeed, this premise formed the basis upon which a breach of the Secretary of State’s public law duty was found and confirmed . . The court accordingly agrees with the applicants that one of the purposes of their detention was their rehabilitation.’ and ‘ . . following the expiry of the applicants’ tariff periods and until steps were taken to progress them through the prison system with a view to providing them with access to appropriate rehabilitative courses . . their detention was arbitrary and therefore unlawful within the meaning of article 5(1)1 of the Convention.’

Citations:

57877/09 – HEJUD, [2012] ECHR 1706, 57877/09 – CLIN, [2012] ECHR 2021, 25119/09, 57715/09, (2013) 56 EHRR 12

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights, Criminal Justice Act 2003 225

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

See Also – James, Wells And Lee v The United Kingdom ECHR 20-Dec-2010
. .
At HL (wrongly decided) – Secretary of State for Justice v James HL 6-May-2009
The applicant had been sentenced to an indefinite term for public protection, but the determinate part of his sentence had passed with no consideration as to whether his continued detention was required.
Held: The post tariff detention was not . .

Cited by:

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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Robinson, Regina (on The Application of) v HMP Whatton and Another Admn 4-Dec-2013
Two prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for public protection sought judicial review of arrangements meaning that they had not been given a timely opportunity to demonstrate to the Parole Board that they are safe to be released. Their . .
Cited – Kaiyam, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice CA 9-Dec-2013
The court was asked as to claims arising from the continued detention of the appellants following the expiry of the ‘minimum terms’ or ‘tariff periods’ of their indeterminate terms of imprisonment. The appellant prisoners said that the respondent’s . .
Cited – Haney and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice SC 10-Dec-2014
The four claimants, each serving indeterminate prison sentences, said that as they approached the times when thy might apply for parol, they had been given insufficient support and training to meet the requirements for release. The courts below had . .
Cited – Docherty, Regina v SC 14-Dec-2016
After conviction on his own admission for wounding with intent, and with a finding that he posed a threat to the public, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for public protection. Such sentences were abolished with effect from the day after . .
Cited – Brown v The Parole Board for Scotland, The Scottish Ministers and Another SC 1-Nov-2017
The court was asked whether the duty under article 5 to provide prisoners with a real opportunity for rehabilitation applied to prisoners serving extended sentences. The prisoner was subject to an extended sentence, but had been released on licence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.467002

Kaiyam, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice: CA 9 Dec 2013

The court was asked as to claims arising from the continued detention of the appellants following the expiry of the ‘minimum terms’ or ‘tariff periods’ of their indeterminate terms of imprisonment. The appellant prisoners said that the respondent’s failure to provide rehabilitation courses meant that they could not earn release. The lower court had rejected their claims being bound by decisions of the House of Lords notwithstanding that those decisions had been overruled by the ECHR.
Held: The lower court had been correct to decide that it could not itself overrule a decision of the House, the instant court had no greater right beyond expressing its views, and leave was given for the matter to go to the Supreme Court.

Judges:

Lord Dyson MR, Underhill, Macur LJJ

Citations:

[2014] 1 WLR 1208, [2013] WLR(D) 480, [2013] EWCA Civ 1587

Links:

WLRD, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Secretary of State for Justice v James HL 6-May-2009
The applicant had been sentenced to an indefinite term for public protection, but the determinate part of his sentence had passed with no consideration as to whether his continued detention was required.
Held: The post tariff detention was not . .
Cited – James, Wells and Lee v The United Kingdom ECHR 18-Sep-2012
ECHR Article 5-1
Deprivation of liberty
Failure to provide the rehabilitative courses to prisoners which were necessary for their release: violation
Facts – By virtue of section 225 of the . .
Appeal from – Robinson, Regina (on The Application of) v HMP Whatton and Another Admn 4-Dec-2013
Two prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for public protection sought judicial review of arrangements meaning that they had not been given a timely opportunity to demonstrate to the Parole Board that they are safe to be released. Their . .
Cited – Kay and Another v London Borough of Lambeth and others; Leeds City Council v Price and others and others HL 8-Mar-2006
In each case the local authority sought to recover possession of its own land. In the Lambeth case, they asserted this right as against an overstaying former tenant, and in the Leeds case as against gypsies. In each case the occupiers said that the . .
Cited – Clift, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 13-Dec-2006
The claimants were former serving prisoners who complained that the early release provisions discriminated against them unjustifiably. Each was subject to a deportation requirement, and said that in their cases the control on the time for their . .

Cited by:

At CA – Haney and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice SC 10-Dec-2014
The four claimants, each serving indeterminate prison sentences, said that as they approached the times when thy might apply for parol, they had been given insufficient support and training to meet the requirements for release. The courts below had . .
Cited – Brown v The Parole Board for Scotland, The Scottish Ministers and Another SC 1-Nov-2017
The court was asked whether the duty under article 5 to provide prisoners with a real opportunity for rehabilitation applied to prisoners serving extended sentences. The prisoner was subject to an extended sentence, but had been released on licence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Constitutional, Human Rights

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.518785

Sturnham v Secretary of State for Justice: CA 23 Feb 2012

The claimant life sentence prisoner had inter alia been detained after the expiry of his tarriff pending a review of whether his continued detention was required for public protection. That review had been delayed, and the claimant was awarded andpound;300 for the associetd anxiety and distress. The Secretary appealed.
Held: Laws LJ took as his starting point the different treatment under the common law of wrongs in private law and in public law, and considered that an analogous distinction was reflected in some of the Strasbourg case law.

Judges:

Laws, McFarlane, Patten LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 452, [2012] 3 WLR 476

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Hman Rights 5(4), Crime Sentences Act 1997 28(6)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Sturnham, Regina (on The Application of) v Parole Board, Secretary of State for Justice Admn 14-Mar-2011
S was serving a term of life imprisonment. After serving the tariff, his detention should have been reviewed. After several serious delays, and a decision that he should instead be transferred to open conditions, he brought proceedings for judicial . .
Cited – Nikolova v Bulgaria ECHR 25-Mar-1999
(Grand Chamber) The claimant had been detained for long periods after coming under suspicion of theft of large sums. Her detention had initially been ordered by prosecutors. Her initial appeals against her detention were also decided by prosecutors. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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 . .
Appeal from – Sturnham, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parole Board of England and Wales and Another (No 2) SC 3-Jul-2013
From 4 April 2005 until 3 December 2012, English law provided for the imposition of sentences of imprisonment for public protection (‘IPP’). The Court addressed the practical and legal issues resulting from the new system.
Held: The decision . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights, Damages

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.452826

RM, Re Judicial Review: SCS 21 Mar 2012

The applicant was detained in a mental hospital. After losing a challenge to being moved to a higher security section he found that he was unable to appeal because the Scottish Parliament had not passed Regulations proving the structure for an appeal as was anticipated by the 2003 Act.
Held: His appeal was rejecetd.

Citations:

[2012] ScotCS CSOH – 53

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003

Citing:

At Outer House – RM v The Scottish Ministers SCS 27-Aug-2008
The petitioner, a detained mental patient challenged the validity of orders made by the Mental Health Tribunal established under the 2003 Act. He said that, the respondents having not passed regulations providing complete processes for the . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – RM v The Scottish Ministers SC 28-Nov-2012
The pursuer was held in a secure mental hospital. When moved to a highersecurity section, he challenged the move. He lost but then was unable to make an apeal as allowed iunder the 2003 Act because the Scottish Parliament had not created the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Constitutional, Prisons

Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452229

Alexander v The United Kingdom: ECHR 30 Jun 2015

The applicant alleged, in particular, that his detention following the expiry of his tariff was unlawful because the Parole Board had refused to recommend his release on the ground that he had not yet completed a specific rehabilitative course, despite the fact that he was unable to access that course.

Citations:

54119/10 – Committee Judgment, [2015] ECHR 633

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.549940

Kats and Others v Ukraine: ECHR 18 Dec 2008

The applicants were the parents and son of a prisoner who died in custody of an HIV related illness. They complained of her treatment in custody.
Held: If someone dies in custody an explanation of the cause of death must be provided, including a narrative of medical treatment provided. Also a suspicious death in custody inevitably raises the question of a breach of article 2 on the part of the authorities.
There had been a violation of the positive obligation under article 2 as a result of a failure to safeguard the life of the deceased. The prison authorities were aware of the deceased’s HIV status and there was a striking failure to give her medical attention. Her death was the result of inadequate medical assistance. There was also a violation of article 2 in respect of the lack of an adequate investigation into the circumstances of the death. It is instructive to see how the court described the investigative duties which arise as part of the positive obligations under article 2 and contrasted them with the procedural obligation which arises when the responsibility of the state for the death is ‘potentially engaged’, as it was in this case as a result of the wholly inadequate nature of the medical facilities and treatment available.
Held: The court noted the different factual contentions of the parties: on the one hand the applicants said that the authorities were well aware of her condition which they failed to treat, and on the other the state suggested that the death resulted from an unpredictable development of the illness which had occurred before the deceased went into custody but of which she failed to inform the authorities. That issue was resolved in favour of the applicants. The court reiterated that the state was under an obligation to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction and continued: ‘Persons in custody are in a particularly vulnerable position and the authorities are under an obligation to account for their treatment, Having held that the Convention requires the state to protect the health and physical well-being of persons deprived of their liberty, for example, by providing them with the requisite medical assistance, the Court considers that, where a detainee dies as a result of a health problem, the state must offer an explanation as to the cause of death and the treatment administered to the person concerned prior to his or her death.
As a general rule, the mere fact that an individual dies in suspicious circumstances while in custody should raise an issue as to whether the state has complied with its obligation to protect that person’s right to life.’

Judges:

Rait Maruste, P

Citations:

[2008] ECHR 1742, 29971/04, (2010) 51 EHRR 44

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

See Also – Kats and Others v Ukraine ECHR 14-Mar-2006
. .
Cited – Slimani v France ECHR 27-Jul-2004
A Tunisian was committed to a psychiatric hospital on several occasions. He died while detained in a detention centre awaiting deportation. The applicant complained that there had been a violation of article 2 on two grounds: the detention centre . .

Cited by:

Cited – Rabone and Another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation SC 8-Feb-2012
The claimant’s daughter had committed suicide whilst on home leave from a hospital where she had stayed as a voluntary patient with depression. Her admission had followed a suicide attempt. The hospital admitted negligence but denied that it owed . .
Cited – Tyrrell v HM Senior Coroner County Durham and Darlington and Another Admn 26-Jul-2016
The court was aked what article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights requires of a coroner when a serving prisoner dies of natural causes.
Held: The reuest for judicial review failed. Mr Tyrrell’s death was, from the outset, one which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.450991

Regina v Parole Board ex parte Zulfikar: CA 28 Apr 1997

The applicant appealed refusal of leave to apply for judicial review of a refusal of parole. He denied his guilt of the offence, and complained it had improperly affected the decision.
Held: Since the decision appealed, the court had, in Hepworth, set out the appropriate considerations. The Parole Board had not acted unlawfully or irrationally. Appeal refused.

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy, Lord Justice Waite, Mr Justice Mccullough

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 1548

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Hepworth, Fenton-Palmer and Baldonzy and Regina v Parole Board ex parte Winfield Admn 25-Mar-1997
The applicants for judicial review had each been convicted and sentenced for sex offences. Each maintained his innocence, and now complained that that fact had prejudiced decisions as to early release on parole and as to their categorisation.
Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Zulfikar Admn 18-Feb-1997
The applicant sought leave to present an applicant for judicial review. He had wanted parole, but the parole board considered that his continued denial of guilt meant that he was unwilling to address the causes of his offending.
Held: The . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Martin Lillycrop; Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Ronald George Powell; Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Andrew Scott Admn 27-Nov-1996
A continued denial of guilt alone is not sufficient to deny prisoner parole. ‘We consider that the Parole Board must approach its consideration of any application for parole on the basis that the Applicant has committed the offences of which he has . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Zulfikar Admn 18-Feb-1997
The applicant sought leave to present an applicant for judicial review. He had wanted parole, but the parole board considered that his continued denial of guilt meant that he was unwilling to address the causes of his offending.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.141944

Szuluk, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Prison Full Sutton: Admn 20 Feb 2004

The prisoner was receiving long term health treatment, and objected that his correspondence with the doctor was being read. He was held as a category B prisoner but in a prison also holding category A prisoners, whose mail would be read. The prison settled upon a routine of the prison doctor reading the mail.
Held: The case was truly exceptional, and the prison should revert to its initial policy which did not require a pre-reading of the correspondence.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 514 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Silver And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Mar-1983
There had been interference with prisoners’ letters by prison authorities. The Commission considered Standing Orders and Circular Instructions in relation to restrictions on correspondence. The rules were not available to prisoners and were . .
Cited – Z v Finland ECHR 25-Feb-1997
A defendant had appealed against his conviction for manslaughter and related offences by deliberately subjecting women to the risk of being infected by him with HIV virus. The applicant, Z, had been married to the defendant, and infected by him with . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina on the Application of Szuluk v The Governor of HMP Full Sutton and the Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 29-Oct-2004
Right of prison to read correspondence with doctor . .
At administrative court – Edward Szuluk v United Kingdom ECHR 3-Jun-2009
The prisoner complained that the prison had monitored his conversations and communications with his doctor.
Held: The actions were a violation of the prisoner’s article 8 rights. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.194914

Shahid v Scottish Ministers: SCS 18 Nov 2011

(Outer House Court of Session) The petitioner complaine dthat whilst serving a very long term of imprisonment, he had been held in segregation for almost five years, and that this contravened the Prison Rules and his human rights.
Held: The claim was refused.

Judges:

Lord Malcolm

Citations:

[2011] ScotCS CSOH – 192, 2012 Rep LR 2, 2011 GWD 40-816, 2012 SLT 178

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3 8, Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 1994

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Appeal from – Shahid v The Scottish Ministers SCS 31-Jan-2014
The appellant was serving a long term of imprsonment, and now complained that he had been held in segregation for over 4 years, saying that this was ahgainst the Prison Rules and against his human rights.
Held: The Extra Division refused the . .
At Outer House – Shahid v Scottish Ministers (Scotland) SC 14-Oct-2015
The appellant convicted of a racially-aggravated vicious murder. Since conviction he had spent almost five years in segregation from other prisoners. The appellant now alleged that some very substantial periods of segregation had been in breach of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448552

F and Scottish Prison Service: SIC 23 May 2011

SIC SPS Policy on prisoner access to in-cell TV, wages and removal of privileges by local management.
Mr F asked the Scottish Prison Service (the SPS) for information as to the SPS local and national policy on prisoner access to in-cell TV, wages, and removal of privileges by local management. No response was provided by the SPS. Following a review, the SPS provided Mr F with information that it considered fully answered his request. Mr F was dissatisfied with this response and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner found that in not responding to Mr F’s request for information within 20 working days the SPS breached section 10(1) of FOISA. However, the Commissioner was satisfied that the SPS complied with section 1(1) of FOISA in providing Mr F with all relevant information it held in relation to his request.

Citations:

[2011] ScotIC 096 – 2011

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information, Prisons

Updated: 23 September 2022; Ref: scu.447297

Regina on the Application of Szuluk v The Governor of HMP Full Sutton and the Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 29 Oct 2004

Right of prison to read correspondence with doctor

Judges:

The Master Of The Rolls Lord Justice Sedley Lord Justice Neuberger

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1426, [2004] EWHC 2652 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Szuluk, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Prison Full Sutton Admn 20-Feb-2004
The prisoner was receiving long term health treatment, and objected that his correspondence with the doctor was being read. He was held as a category B prisoner but in a prison also holding category A prisoners, whose mail would be read. The prison . .

Cited by:

At Court of Appeal – Edward Szuluk v United Kingdom ECHR 3-Jun-2009
The prisoner complained that the prison had monitored his conversations and communications with his doctor.
Held: The actions were a violation of the prisoner’s article 8 rights. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.219123