Category: Prisons

Docherty and Others v The Scottish Ministers: SCS 2 Sep 2011

The pursuers each sought damages, saying that the conditions in which they had been held whilst prisoners in HMP Barlinnie had infringed their human rights.
Held: It would be contrary to public policy and an abuse of process for a person to proceed by way of an ordinary action to establish that a public authority’s decision had infringed rights that were entitled to protection under public law. Where private rights depended on prior public law decisions, they must ordinarily be litigated by judicial review.

Judges:

Lord President, Lady Smith, Lord Wheatley

Citations:

[2011] ScotCS CSIH – 58, 2012 SC 150

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3 8

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – Ruddy v Chief Constable, Strathclyde Police and Another SC 28-Nov-2012
The pursuer said that he had been assaulted whilst in the custody of the responder’s officers. He began civil actions after his complaint was rejected. He repeated the allegation of the assault, and complained also as to the conduct of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Torts – Other, Human Rights

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.443605

Massey v Governor of HM Prison Liverpool and Another: Admn 26 Aug 2011

The court gave its reasons for refusing a writ of habeas corpus. ‘The basis of the claim brought by the Claimant appeared to be that he had not given his consent to the proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court and that such consent was necessary. Further, he seemed to assert that his consent was necessary for a term of imprisonment to be imposed. His McKenzie friend sought to challenge the basis of my jurisdiction.’
Held: ‘the Claimant was convicted by a competent court of a criminal offence and . . the sentence imposed upon the Claimant was entirely lawful. In those circumstances there can be no basis for the grant of the writ of habeas corpus.’

Judges:

Wyn Williams J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 2270 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.443310

Home Office v Stellato: QBD 7 Apr 2009

The court considered the calculations of damages for a claimant who had been unlawfully detained in prison. He had been serving a sentence of 10 years imprisonment. He had sought release at three quarters of his sentence as of right but this was at first refused, and he was detained beyond the date which the court of appeal later confirmed should have been his release date.

Judges:

Cranston J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1719 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Damages, Prisons

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442594

A B v The Netherlands: ECHR 29 Jan 2002

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 8 in respect of control of correspondence with the Commission and with lawyer; No violation of Art. 8 in respect of other correspondence; Violation of Art. 13

Citations:

37328/97, [2002] ECHR 9

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Judgment – A B v The Netherlands ECHR 15-Sep-2010
Execution of judgment – The case concerns the control of the applicant’s correspondence with the European Commission of Human Rights by prison authorities of the Netherlands Antilles between 1997 and 1998. The case also concerns interference with . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.167531

Davidson v Scottish Ministers (No 3): HL 31 Jul 2003

Application for permission to appeal to the House.
Held: Rejected because it seeks to proceed without the prior leave of the Inner House, and ‘ In any event, the effect of the interlocutor of 11 September 2002 is that there is for the time being no valid judgment of the Inner House in the judicial review process against which an appeal can be made ‘

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hoffmann and Lord Hope of Craighead

Citations:

[2003] UKHL 72, 2005 1 SC(HL) 1

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2003/2005_SC_HL_1.htmlCourt of Session Act 1988 40(1)

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Cited – In re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No 4) CA 26-Jul-2001
The parties had expended very considerable sums preparing for a hearing. The hearing became abortive when it was questioned whether a member of the court had given the appearance of bias. The parties sought payment of their wasted costs from the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.441993

Gourlay, Regina (on The Application of) v Parole Board: SC 4 Dec 2020

The appellant life prisoner had successfully challenged a decision of the parole board, but had later been refused his costs on the basis that the Board had been acting in effect as a judicial body.

Judges:

Lord Reed PSC, Lord Hodge DPSC, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lady Arden, Lord Leggatt JJSC

Citations:

[2020] UKSC 50, [2020] WLR(D) 666, [2020] 1 WLR 5344

Links:

Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Press Summary, Bailii Issues and facts

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina on the Application of Davies (No 2) v HM Deputy Coroner for Birmingham CA 27-Feb-2004
The claimant appealed against a costs order. She had previously appealed against an order of the High Court on her application for judicial review of the inquest held by the respondent.
Held: The coroner, and others in a similar position . .
Appeal from – Gourlay, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parole Board CA 14-Jul-2017
Does the established practice of the High Court, to make no order for costs for or against an inferior tribunal or court which plays no active part in a judicial review of one of its decisions, extend to the Board? . .
Cited – Regina on the Application of Davies (No 2) v HM Deputy Coroner for Birmingham CA 27-Feb-2004
The claimant appealed against a costs order. She had previously appealed against an order of the High Court on her application for judicial review of the inquest held by the respondent.
Held: The coroner, and others in a similar position . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Costs

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.656805

Nouazli, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 20 Apr 2016

The court considered the compatibility with EU law of regulations 21 and 24 of the 2006 Regulations, and the legality at common law of the appellant’s administrative detention from 3 April until 6 June 2012 and of bail restrictions thereafter until 2 January 2013. The regulations were designed to give effect to the Citizens Directive 2004/58/EC of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the member states. The claimant was a non EU national. He had married an EU national resident within the UK. After criminal convictions, he was detained pending deportation on public policy grounds.
Held: His appeal failed. The pre-decision detention had not been unlawful. It was not necessary to refer the case to the ECJ. Article 18 TFEU is concerned only with the way in which EU citizens are treated in member states other than their states of nationality, and not the way in which member states treat nationals of other countries residing within their territories.
There is in place a clear statutory framework which involves appropriate judicial scrutiny and the consideration of the guidelines referred to above. In short, each case depends upon its particular facts.
The primary responsibility to comply with the Hardial Singh principles lies with the Secretary of State but the courts provide supervision of their application and challenges can be brought to secure release and not just for damages after the event.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Clarke, Lord Carnwath, Lord Toulson

Citations:

[2016] UKSC 16, [2016] HRLR 11, [2016] WLR(D) 220, [2016] 1 WLR 1565, [2016] INLR 460, [2016] 4 All ER 720, [2016] 3 CMLR 17, [2016] 1 WLR 1565, [2016] WLR(D) 220, [2016] INLR 460, UKSC 2014/0139

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary

Statutes:

Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, Citizens Directive 2004/58/EC

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Vatsouras v Arbeitsgemeinschaft (ARGE) Nurnberg 900; Koupatantze v Arbeitsgemeinschaft (ARGE) Nurnberg 90 – C-22/08 ECJ 4-Jun-2009
ECJ European citizenship Free movement of persons Articles 12 EC and 39 EC Directive 2004/38/EC Article 24(2) Assessment of validity Nationals of a Member State Professional activity in another Member State Level . .
At Admn – Nouazli, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 15-Mar-2013
Challenge to power of the SS to detain the claimant a national of the European Economic Area pending a decision to deport. The claimant was a third country national married to an EU national. He was detained pending deportation on the grounds of . .
At CA – Nouazli, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 10-Dec-2013
The appellant sought to challenge an order for his detention pending his deportation by the respondent. A national of a non EU state he had married an EU national resident in the UK. He had been convicted of offences here and detained pending . .
Cited – Moustaquim v Belgium ECHR 18-Feb-1991
The applicant was a Moroccan national who arrived in Belgium in 1965 when he was aged under 2. In 1984, nineteen years later, after a career of juvenile crime, he was deported, but the deportation order was suspended in 1989 and he returned to . .
Cited – Martinez Sala v Freistaat Bayern ECJ 12-May-1998
ECJ A benefit such as the child-raising allowance, which is automatically granted to persons fulfilling certain objective criteria, without any individual and discretionary assessment of personal needs, and which . .
Cited – Bhavyesh and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 26-Jul-2012
Rolled up hearing for permission and, if permission be granted, the substantive hearing of a challenge to an amendment made in November 2010 to the Immigration Rules laid before Parliament by the respondent, Secretary of State. In essence, these . .
Cited – Ponomaryov and Others v Bulgaria ECHR 18-Sep-2007
The applicants complained they were required to pay school fees as a result of their Kazakh nationality and immigration status.
Held: ‘… [A state] may also, in certain circumstances, justifiably differentiate between different categories of . .
Cited – NS v Secretary of State for the Home Department etc ECJ 21-Dec-2011
Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment
ECJ (Grand Chamber) European Union law – Principles – Fundamental rights – Implementation of European Union law – Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment – Common European Asylum System – Regulation (EC) No . .
Cited – Regina v Governor of Durham Prison, ex parte Hardial Singh QBD 13-Dec-1983
Unlawful Detention pending Deportation
An offender had been recommended for deportation following conviction. He had served his sentence and would otherwise have been released on parole. He had no passport and no valid travel documents. He complained that the length of time for which he . .
Cited – Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Surinder Singh, ex parte Secretary of State for the Home Department ECJ 7-Jul-1992
ECJ The provisions of the Treaty relating to the free movement of persons are intended to facilitate the pursuit by Community citizens of occupational activities of all kinds throughout the Community and preclude . .
Cited – Tan Te Lam v Superintendent of Tai A Chau Detention Centre PC 27-Mar-1996
(Hong Kong) Migrants from Vietnam of Chinese ethnic origin had landed in Hong Kong by boat, and been refused refugee status. They were detained for several years under section 13D of the Immigration Ordinance ‘pending . . removal from Hong Kong’. . .
Cited – Chahal v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-1996
Proper Reply Opportunity Required on Deportation
(Grand Chamber) The claimant was an Indian citizen who had been granted indefinite leave to remain in this country but whose activities as a Sikh separatist brought him to the notice of the authorities both in India and here. The Home Secretary of . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex parte Saadi and others HL 31-Oct-2002
The applicants were Kurdish asylum seekers. The Home Secretary introduced powers to detain certain asylum seekers for a short period in order to facilitate the speedy resolution of their applications. Only those who it was suspected might run away . .
Cited – Saadi v United Kingdom ECHR 29-Jan-2008
(Grand Chamber) The applicant sought judicial review of the decision to detain him for a short period while his asylum claim was being subject to fast-track processing. The decision was made pursuant to a policy under which all asylum claimants . .
Cited – Hussein v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 21-Oct-2009
The complaint as to a detention pending a decision on whether one of the exceptions to automatic deportation applies. . .
Cited – Lumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 23-Mar-2011
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as . .
Cited – Kambadzi (previously referred to as SK (Zimbabwe)) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 25-May-2011
False Imprisonment Damages / Immigration Detention
The respondent had held the claimant in custody, but had failed to follow its own procedures. The claimant appealed against the rejection of his claim of false imprisonment. He had overstayed his immigration leave, and after convictions had served a . .
Cited – Tabassum v The United Kingdom ECHR 24-Jan-2012
. .
Cited – Francis, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another CA 23-May-2014
Appeal against rejection of claim for damages after alleged unlawful detention in immigration detention centre pending examination of immigration status. . .
Cited – Fardous v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 5-Sep-2014
The claimant had been subject to administrative detention after his failed asylum claim. The court considered whether he was entitled to an award for wrongful imprisonment. . .
Cited – Fardous v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 25-Aug-2015
The Secretary of State appealed against a finding that the claimant had been unlawfully detained pending his removal to Morocco.
Held: The approach taken in Hardial Singh requires both the SSHD and the courts to take a fact sensitive approach . .
Cited – Ismoilov And Others v Russia ECHR 24-Apr-2008
The court criticised the Russian system in prisons: ‘in the absence of clear legal provisions establishing the procedure for ordering and extending detention with a view to extradition and setting up time-limits for such detention, the deprivation . .
Cited – Abdolkhani And Karimnia v Turkey ECHR 22-Sep-2009
The Court in the context of detention pending deportation, concluded: ‘In sum, in the absence of clear legal provisions establishing the procedure for ordering and extending detention with a view to deportation and setting time-limits for such . .
Cited – Charahili v Turkey ECHR 13-Apr-2010
. .
Cited – Dbouba v Turkey ECHR 13-Jul-2010
. .
Cited – Alipour And Hosseinzadgan v Turkey ECHR 13-Jul-2010
. .
Cited – Safir v Skattemyndigheten I Dajarnas Lan ECJ 1-May-1998
Different tax treatment of insurance products according to whether company offering them was based in the member country or another was unlawful breach of Treaty. . .
Cited – Digital Rights Ireland v The Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources etc ECJ 8-Apr-2014
ECJ Grand Chamber – Electronic communications – Directive 2006/24/EC – Publicly available electronic communications services or public communications networks services – Retention of data generated or processed . .
Cited – Lumsdon and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Legal Services Board SC 24-Jun-2015
The appellant, barristers and solicitors, challenged the respondent’s approval of alterations to their regulatory arrangements, under Part 3 of Schedule 4 to the 2007 Act. The alterations gave effect to the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates . .

Cited by:

Cited – Hemmati and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 27-Nov-2019
The Home Secretary appealed from a finding that illegally entered asylum seekers had been unlawfully detained pending removal. The five claimants had travelled through other EU member states before entering the UK. The court considered inter alia . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Immigration, Prisons

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.562189

Gourlay, Regina (on The Application of) v Parole Board: Admn 24 Nov 2014

Challenge by way of judicial review to the Decision of the Parole Board following an oral hearing first not to direct the release on licence of the claimant, and secondly, not to recommend the transfer of the claimant to open conditions. The challenge was directed solely at the second part, namely the decision not to recommend open transfer.
Held: The challenge succeeded.

Judges:

King J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 4763 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina on the Application of Davies (No 2) v HM Deputy Coroner for Birmingham CA 27-Feb-2004
The claimant appealed against a costs order. She had previously appealed against an order of the High Court on her application for judicial review of the inquest held by the respondent.
Held: The coroner, and others in a similar position . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.545129

Reilly, Re Judicial Review: CANI 6 Apr 2011

The applicant had been granted judicial review of a decision by the parole board not to grant his release on parole but without having afforded him an oral hearing. The Board now appealed.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The court followed the approach which had been adopted by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales in the cases of Osborn and Booth, concluding that, since the factual issues highlighted by the appellant’s solicitors were not of critical importance, it followed that the board could fairly conclude that an oral hearing would not assist it in its determination of the relevant issue.

Judges:

Higgins LJ, Coghlin LJ, The Rt Hon Sir Anthony Campbell

Citations:

[2011] NICA 6

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Citing:

Appeal from – Reilly, Re Judicial Review QBNI 13-Apr-2010
The claimant said that a decision had been made as to his release from prison but without his having had opportunity to make oral representations.
Held: The board had acted in breach of its common law duty to act fairly, and incompatibly with . .
Appeal from – Reilly, Re Judicial Review QBNI 10-May-2010
The court had found that the respondent had acted in breach of the claimant’s human rights in making a decision against his release from prison on parole without affording an opportunity to make oral representations. It now considered the remedy. . .
Applied – Osborn and Another v The Parole Board CA 15-Dec-2010
The three claimants complained that the respondent had made decisions adverse to them as to their release to or recall from parole.
Held: Review was refused. While there was ‘some force in the submission that, contrary to the understanding of . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Osborn v The Parole Board SC 9-Oct-2013
Three prisoners raised questions as to the circumstances in which the Parole Board is required to hold an oral hearing before making an adverse decision. One of the appeals (Osborn) concerned a determinate sentence prisoner who was released on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Northern Ireland, Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.441895

NM, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: Admn 12 Jul 2011

The claimant, a prisoner with significant learning difficulties had been sexually assauted whilst in prison. He challenged the respondent’s decision not to investigate his complaint.

Judges:

Mackie QC J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 1816 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prison Service Order 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons, Discrimination

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.441593

Greenfield, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 16 Feb 2005

The appellant had been charged with and disciplined for a prison offence. He was refused legal assistance at his hearing, and it was accepted that the proceedings involved the determination of a criminal charge within the meaning of article 6 of the Convention, that the deputy controller was not an independent tribunal and that the appellant was wrongly denied legal representation of his own choosing, and the appeal was limited to damages.
Held: The ECHR has been reluctant to allow a violation of article 6 to be, in itself, just satisfaction under article 41 only where the Court finds a causal connection between the violation found and the loss for which an applicant claims to be compensated. Where, having found a violation of article 6, the ECHR has made an award of monetary compensation under article 41, under either of the heads of general damages it considered in this opinion, whether for loss of procedural opportunity or anxiety and frustration, the sums awarded have been noteworthy for their modesty. It was argued awards should not be on the low side as compared with tortious awards, and that English courts should be free to depart from the scale of damages awarded by the European Court using English awards as comparators. That was incorrect the purpose of the 1998 Act was to avoid for claimants the need to go to Strasbourg, not to make greater awards than would be available there. The finding itself should be treated as just satisfaction save only in exceptional circumstances.
Lord Bingham pointed out that Convention claims have very different objectives from civil actions. Where civil actions are designed essentially to compensate claimants for their losses, Convention claims are intended rather to uphold minimum human rights standards and to vindicate those rights.

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood

Citations:

[2005] UKHL 14, Times 18-Feb-2005, [2005] 1 WLR 673

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5, Human Rights Act 1998 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina (Carroll and Another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Regina (Greenfield) v Same CA 19-Jul-2001
The applicants had been disciplined whilst in prison, and suffered various penalties including the loss of remission. They argued that the penalties had been imposed in breach of their human rights and that the protection given for intimate searches . .
Cited – Piersack v Belgium ECHR 1-Oct-1982
Hudoc applicant convicted of murder complained that his right to a fair trial under Article 6(1) had been denied because the trial court had been presided over by a Judge who, when senior deputy procureur, had . .
Cited – GW v United Kingdom ECHR 15-Jun-2004
. .
Cited – Ezeh and Connors v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Jul-2002
The applicants were serving prisoners. They had been the subject of disciplinary proceedings in which they had been denied the right to representation. They claimed an infringement of their right to a fair trial.
Held: Both proceedings had . .
Cited – Bonisch v Austria ECHR 6-May-1985
Hudoc ‘. . . in the present case an award of just satisfaction can only be based on the fact that the applicant did not have, before the Austrian courts, the benefit of the guarantees of Article 6(1).’ . .
Cited – Anufrijeva v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 22-Mar-2002
Three asylum-seekers brought claims of breach of their Article 8 rights. One complained of a local authority’s failure to provide accommodation to meet special needs, the other two of maladministration and delay in the handling of their asylum . .
Cited – De Cubber v Belgium ECHR 26-Oct-1984
The applicant a Belgian, had been convicted of forgery. He said that the court had not been an impartial tribunal because one of the judges had also acted as an investigating judge in his case. Amongst the grounds on which it was contended that . .
Cited – Perks and others v The United Kingdom ECHR 12-Oct-1999
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) No violation of Art. 5-1; Art. 5-5 inapplicable; Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of Art. 6-3-c; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award (Perks); Non-pecuniary damage . .
Cited – Delta v France ECHR 19-Dec-1990
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-d; Damage – financial award; Costs and expenses – claim rejected . .
Cited – Vidal v Belgium ECHR 22-Apr-1992
Hudoc Violation of Art. 6; Just satisfaction reserved . .
Cited – Pelissier and Sassi v France ECHR 25-Mar-1999
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-a; Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-b; Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and . .
Cited – Benham v United Kingdom ECHR 8-Feb-1995
Legal Aid was wrongfully refused where a tax or fine defaulter was liable to imprisonment, and the lack of a proper means enquiry, made imprisonment of poll tax defaulter unlawful. A poll tax defaulter had been wrongly committed to prison by . .
Cited – Findlay v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Feb-1997
The applicant complained that the members of a court-martial were appointed by the Convening Officer, who was closely linked to the prosecuting authorities. The members of the court-martial were subordinate in rank to the Convening Officer who had . .
Cited – Zielinski v France ECHR 28-Oct-1999
Hudoc The applicants challenged a retrospective change in employment law under article 6(1).
Held: The court stated that while in principle the legislature is not precluded in civil matters from adopting . .
Cited – Edwards and Lewis v United Kingdom ECHR 27-Oct-2004
E had been convicted of possession of heroin with intent to supply, and L of possession of counterfeit currency. In each case public interest certificates had been obtained to withold evidence from them. The judge had refused requests to exclude . .
Cited – Kingsley v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Nov-2000
The judicial review procedure which restricted the matters which it considered so as to exclude consideration of the allegation by the applicant that the tribunal whose decision he challenged had not been impartial, was insufficient to support the . .
Cited – Polskiego v Poland ECHR 21-Sep-2004
. .
Cited – Kingsley v The United Kingdom (No 2) ECHR 28-May-2002
The finding that a party had been denied a fair trial may of itself be sufficient compensation. The applicant had been excluded from management of licensed casinos. The appeal board had been found to have given the appearance of bias against him. . .
Cited – Lewis v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Nov-2003
Police had made secret tape recordings of conversations in the claimant’s home, which recordings had later been used as evidence against him, and had led to his conviction.
Held: At the time of the recordings there was no statutory system . .
Cited – Edwards and Lewis v The United Kingdom ECHR 22-Jul-2003
(Commission) The claimants said that the procedures used to secure their convictions amounted to entrapment, and that UK criminal procedures did not give sufficient protection so as to provide a fair trial. One was arrested with heroin, and the . .
Cited – Davies v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Jul-2002
The applicant had been subject to applications for his disqualification from acting as a company director. The Secretary of State waited until the last day before issuing proceedings, and the proceedings were then delayed another three years pending . .
Cited – Goddi v Italy ECHR 9-Apr-1984
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-3-c; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award . .
Cited – Hooper v United Kingdom ECHR 16-Nov-2004
The defendant had appeared in court on a charge of assault. The magistrate considered that he might be unruly and withoutmore bound him over to keep the peace. In the absence of any surety, he was committed to custody.
Held: The proceedings . .
Cited – Colozza v Italy ECHR 12-Feb-1985
The defendant complained that he had been tried and convicted in his absence.
Held: The right to a fair trial had been breached: ‘the object and purpose of [article 6] taken as a whole show that a person ‘charged with a criminal offence’ is . .
Cited – Weeks v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-Mar-1987
The applicant, aged 17, was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment in the interests of public safety, being considered by the trial judge on appeal to be dangerous.
Held: ‘The court agrees with the Commission and the . .
Cited – O v The United Kingdom ECHR 8-Jul-1987
Hudoc Violation of Art. 6-1; Just satisfaction reserved
Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Costs and expenses – struck out of the list (friendly settlement); . .
Cited – Lechner And Hess v Austria ECHR 23-Apr-1987
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses . .
Cited – Regina (Bernard and Another) v Enfield Borough Council Admn 25-Oct-2002
The claimants were husband and wife. They had six children. The wife was severely disabled and confined to a wheelchair. The defendant Council provided the family with a small house but in breach, as they ultimately accepted, of section 21(1) (a) of . .
Cited – De Geouffre De La Pradelle v France ECHR 16-Dec-1992
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 13; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses . .
Cited – Migon v Poland ECHR 25-Jun-2002
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-4; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) – claim rejected
‘In the present case, . .
Cited – Robins v The United Kingdom ECHR 23-Sep-1997
Over-long delay by court system in settling amount of costs constituted breach of human rights; order made in 1991, not settled till 1995 . .
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 – Osman v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-Oct-1998
Police’s Complete Immunity was Too Wide
(Grand Chamber) A male teacher developed an obsession with a male pupil. He changed his name by deed poll to the pupil’s surname. He was required to teach at another school. The pupil’s family’s property was subjected to numerous acts of vandalism, . .
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:

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 . .
Cited – 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 – Van Colle v Hertfordshire Police QBD 10-Mar-2006
The claimants claimed for the estate of their murdered son. He had been waiting to give evidence in a criminal trial, and had asked the police for support having received threats. Other witnesses had also suffered intimidation including acts of . .
Cited – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence CA 29-Mar-2006
The applicant had dual Iraqi and British nationality. He was detained by British Forces in Iraq under suspicion of terrorism, and interned.
Held: His appeal failed. The UN resolution took priority over the European Convention on Human Rights . .
Cited – Van Colle and Another v Chief Constable of the Hertfordshire Police CA 24-Apr-2007
The deceased had acted as a witness in an intended prosecution. He had sought protection after being threatened. No effective protection was provided, and he was murdered. The chief constable appealed a finding of liability.
Held: The . .
Cited – Somerville v Scottish Ministers HL 24-Oct-2007
The claimants complained of their segregation while in prison. Several preliminary questions were to be decided: whether damages might be payable for breach of a Convention Right; wheher the act of a prison governor was the act of the executive; . .
Cited – Dobson and others v Thames Water Utilities Ltd and Another CA 29-Jan-2009
The claimants complained of odours and mosquitoes affecting their properties from the activities of the defendants in the conduct of their adjoining Sewage Treatment plant. The issue was as to the rights of non title holders to damages in nuisance . .
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 – Michael and Others v The Chief Constable of South Wales Police and Another SC 28-Jan-2015
The claimants asserted negligence in the defendant in failing to provide an adequate response to an emergency call, leading, they said to the death of their daughter at the hands of her violent partner. They claimed also under the 1998 Act. The . .
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 . .
Cited – Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis v DSD and Another SC 21-Feb-2018
Two claimants had each been sexually assaulted by a later notorious, multiple rapist. Each had made complaints to police about their assaults but said that no effective steps had been taken to investigate the serious complaints.
Held: The . .
Cited – Lee-Hirons v Secretary of State for Justice SC 27-Jul-2016
The appellant had been detained in a mental hospital after a conviction. Later released, he was recalled, but he was not given written reasons as required by a DoH circular. However the SS referred the recall immediately to the Tribunal. He appealed . .
Cited – Hemmati and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 27-Nov-2019
The Home Secretary appealed from a finding that illegally entered asylum seekers had been unlawfully detained pending removal. The five claimants had travelled through other EU member states before entering the UK. The court considered inter alia . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Damages, Human Rights

Updated: 14 September 2022; Ref: scu.222767

Cross, Regina (on the Application of) v Governor HM Young Offenders Institute Thorn Cross: Admn 20 Jan 2004

The claimant prisoner challenged the governor’s refusal to release him on the home detention curfew scheme. Henriques J said: ‘no risk assessment is necessary in cases where a prisoner has committed a presumed unsuitable offence. It is only if there are exceptional circumstances that a risk assessment is carried out to see if the risk is low enough for the prisoner to be released on Home Detention Curfew . . the Governor, in considering exceptional circumstances, is concerned with maintaining public confidence in the scheme. The Secretary of State has decided that Governors should not have regard to the circumstances of the offences. Paragraphs 26 and 33 of the Prison Service Instruction makes this clear . . In particular, para 33 states that exceptional reasons will not include the level of risk the offender poses. Prisoners presumed unsuitable may, indeed, be judged as presenting a low risk of offending or of breach. It is likely that only a very few presumed unsuitable prisoners, nationally, will be released on Home Detention Curfew. Since exceptional reasons will not include the level of risk the offender poses, it seems to me that circumstances will be peculiar to the offender rather than the offence.’

Judges:

Henriques J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 149 (Admin), [2005] 1 Prison LR 100

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In Re Findlay, in re Hogben HL 1985
A public authority, and the Prison Service in particular, is free, within the limits of rationality, to decide on any policy as to how to exercise its discretions; it is entitled to change its policy from time to time for the future, and a person . .

Cited by:

Cited – Young, Regina (on The Application of) v Governor of Her Majesty’s Prison Highdown and Another Admn 6-Apr-2011
The claimant complained that he had not been considered for early release on Home Detention Curfew because the policy refused to allow those convicted of knife crimes to be so considered, and: ‘the failure to include other offences in the list of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 14 September 2022; Ref: scu.193700

Regina (Carroll and Another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Regina (Greenfield) v Same: CA 19 Jul 2001

The applicants had been disciplined whilst in prison, and suffered various penalties including the loss of remission. They argued that the penalties had been imposed in breach of their human rights and that the protection given for intimate searches was inadequate.
Held: Although the proceedings may have the effect of postponing the prisoners release, in law they only reduced the extent of remission, and were not therefore criminal proceedings, but rather disciplinary ones, and therefore the Human Rights provisions did not apply. As to the searches there was no obligation on an officer to give reasons for the requirement for an intimate search. They were undignified, and must only be undertaken for good reason, but that good reason existed here. It was impractical to require reasons to be given, though where it was not impractical, it might be good practice to give them. Such a search, where general, should be made on the authority only of somebody of governor grade, and the reasons recorded.

Judges:

Woolf LCJ, Tuckey LJ, Arden LJ

Citations:

Times 16-Aug-2001, [2002] 1 WLR 545

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1991 42(2), European Convention on Human Rights 5.1 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Greenfield v Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 22-Feb-2001
Disciplinary proceedings within a prison were not criminal charges so as to bring into play the provisions of the Human Rights Act, even though they could result in an extension of the time which would be served by the prisoner. Such proceedings . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Greenfield v Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 22-Feb-2001
Disciplinary proceedings within a prison were not criminal charges so as to bring into play the provisions of the Human Rights Act, even though they could result in an extension of the time which would be served by the prisoner. Such proceedings . .
Appeal from – Greenfield, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Feb-2005
The appellant had been charged with and disciplined for a prison offence. He was refused legal assistance at his hearing, and it was accepted that the proceedings involved the determination of a criminal charge within the meaning of article 6 of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 14 September 2022; Ref: scu.159482

Committee On The Administration of Justice, Re Judicial Review: QBNI 15 May 2014

Challenge to a decision by the Parole Commissioners refusing access to a representative of the CAJ to observe a parole hearing. There is a further challenge to an alleged implicit policy operated by the PCNI whereby representatives of responsible organisations will never be entitled to access to parole hearings.

Citations:

[2014] NIQB 67

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Prisons

Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.533916

Omoregbee, Regina, On The Application of v Secretary of State for Justice: CA 13 Apr 2011

The court was asked as to the problems if any posed by recategorisation of a prisoner liable to be deported but coming toward the end of his term of imprisonment, and in particular whether it was appropriate to hold him suitable for open conditions.

Judges:

Sir Anthony May P, Sullican, Gross LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 559

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons

Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.439818

Greens and Others, Re Application for Judicial Review: SCS 12 May 2011

Citations:

[2011] ScotCS CSOH – 79

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

See Also – Greens v The United Kingdom ECHR 23-Nov-2010
The applicants alleged a violation of article 3 in the refusal to allow them to enrol on the electoral register whilst serving prison sentences.
Held: Where one of its judgments raises issues of general public importance and sensitivity, in . .
See Also – Greens v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 12-Sep-2007
The defendant appealed against his sentence of seventeen years’ imprisonment for a violent rape. . .
See Also – Robert W Greens v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-Aug-2009
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.439690

Omoregbee, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice: Admn 22 Oct 2010

The claimant challenged the refusal of the respoondent to reduce his prisoner category from C to D, saying it was based upon a faulty policy applying to foreign nationals who might be liable to deportation on release.

Judges:

Langan QC J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2658 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons

Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.425573

McCourt, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parole Board for England and Wales and Others: Admn 1 Sep 2020

The mother of a murder victim sought to challenge the release of her murderer on parole. The court considered her standing to seek review, saying: ‘In defining the standing requirement, Parliament chose a deliberately open-textured phrase: an applicant must demonstrate a ‘sufficient interest in the matter to which the application relates’.’

Judges:

Lady Justice Macur and Mr Justice Chamberlain

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 2320 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Senior Courts Act 1981 31(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Good Law Project Ltd and Others, Regina (on Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Admn 18-Feb-2021
Failure to Publish Contracts awards details
Challenge to alleged failures by the Secretary of State to comply with procurement law and policy in relation to contracts for goods and services awarded following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Held: The contracts had been awarded under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Judicial Review

Updated: 09 September 2022; Ref: scu.653302

SS And Others v The United Kingdom (Dec): ECHR 21 Apr 2015

ECHR Article 14
Discrimination
Alleged discrimination in entitlement to social security benefits of prisoners in psychiatric care compared to other persons detained for psychiatric treatment: inadmissible
Facts – Under the relevant domestic legislation prisoners were not entitled to social security benefits while serving a prison sentence, including during any periods they were required to spend in psychiatric hospital pursuant to the Mental Health Act 1983. Conversely, persons not sentenced to a term of imprisonment but who were detained for psychiatric treatment either as civil patients under section 3 of the 1983 Act or as an alternative to prison under section 37 of the Act (‘section 37 patients’) retained their entitlement to benefits.
The applicants were all convicted and sentenced prisoners who had served, or were serving, part of their sentences in psychiatric hospitals under the relevant provisions of the 1983 Act. In their application to the European Court, they complained that denying them the social security benefits that were paid to other patients being treated under the Act was contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Law – Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: It was undisputed that social security benefits fell within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that the status of prisoner was covered by the term ‘other status’ in Article 14. Article 14 was thus applicable.
(a) Analogous position: The Court reiterated that prisoners did not forfeit their Convention rights in prison, although the manner and extent to which they could enjoy them would inevitably be influenced by the context. Whether or not a prisoner could, for the purposes of Article 14, claim to be in an analogous position to other categories of the population depended on the subject-matter of the complaint. Although the applicants had asserted that the appropriate comparator group in their case was other detained patients, the Court considered that in reality the applicants had significant elements in common both with other patients and other prisoners. While their stay in hospital undoubtedly served a curative purpose, and not a punitive one, as a matter of domestic law they remained under a sentence of imprisonment. Accordingly, even if it was accepted that the applicants were in all other respects under the same legal regime as section 37 patients, the difference between the two groups in terms of criminal-law status could not be regarded as insignificant or irrelevant. Although this did not preclude a comparison with section 37, the applicants’ status as prisoners was ‘very relevant’ to the assessment of compliance with the other requirements of Article 14.
(b) Objective and reasonable justification: The Court accepted as being within the respondent State’s broad margin of appreciation, both as a matter of penal and social policy, the decision to apply a general rule disqualifying convicted prisoners from social security benefits. It followed that the aim of the relevant regulations, which was to apply this exclusionary rule consistently and to correct anomalies, could not be said to be manifestly without reasonable foundation. Fully assimilating the categories of serving prisoners and prisoners transferred to a psychiatric hospital for the purposes of social security could not be said to be lacking in justification, but instead fell within the range of permissible choices open to the domestic authorities.
Nor did the Court discern any failure to respect the requirement of proportionality. The exclusion from entitlement to social security benefits was no broader than necessary, being coterminous with the sentence of imprisonment. In the case of a determinate sentence, those detained beyond what would normally have been the date of release had their entitlements restored, placing them on the same footing as other detained patients. Until such time, the applicants’ essential needs, material and medical, were met in any event and they received an allowance to meet their incidental expenses. No different analysis was called for in respect of the two applicants subject to a life sentence who had already served the minimum term imposed on them.
Accordingly, the difference in treatment complained of did not constitute discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention.
Conclusion: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
(See also Shelley v. the United Kingdom, 23800/06, 4 January 2008, Information Note 104; Clift v. the United Kingdom, 7205/07, 13 July 2010, Information Note 132; and Stummer v. Austria [GC], 37452/02, 7 July 2011, Information Note 143)

Citations:

40356/10 54466/10 – Chamber Judgment, [2015] ECHR 520, 54466/10 – Legal Summary, [2015] ECHR 542, 40356/10

Links:

Bailii, Bailii (Summary)

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights, Prisons, Benefits

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.547584

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 review challenging the lawfulness of the decision taken by the Parole Board following a hearing, and also the delay in holding that hearing.
Held: Mitting J rejected the challenge in respect of the lawfulness of the decision. However:
(1) Mr Sturnham’s rights under article 5(4) were breached in that the hearing before the Board did not take place until approximately six months had elapsed from the date on which it should have taken place. That delay resulted from the delay in the delivery of the dossier to the Board.
(2) There was no prospect that Mr Sturnham’s release would have been ordered if the hearing had taken place six months earlier.
(3) It was more likely than not that the Board would have directed Mr Sturnham’s transfer to open conditions six months earlier than occurred.
(4) Such a transfer would not necessarily have resulted in his earlier release. Nor would it have done so to a lower standard of probability.
(5) Mr Sturnham had been caused anxiety and distress by the delay.

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 938 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 28, European Convention on Human Rights 5(4)

Citing:

Applied – Guntrip, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another Admn 9-Dec-2010
The claimant prisoner should have had his detention reviewed after serving the tariff part of his sentence. He sought damages for the delay. The first hearing before the Board, following the expiry of the tariff, had not taken place until about two . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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 . .
At first Instance – 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 . .
At first instance – 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

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434867

Lauchlan v Scottish Prison Service: SIC 29 Jan 2010

Mr Lauchlan requested from the Scottish Prison Service (the SPS) copies of documents setting out SPS policy or guidance as to contact between same sex partners. The SPS responded by providing Mr Lauchlan with a notice under section 17 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) that information relevant to his request was not held. Following a review, Mr Lauchlan remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the SPS had dealt with Mr Lauchlan’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA. He did not require the SPS to take any action.

Citations:

[2010] ScotIC 015 – 2010

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information, Prisons

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.433738

SO (Imprisonment Breaks Continuity of Residence) Nigeria: UTIAC 7 Apr 2011

UTIAC Time spent in prison however short is to be disregarded in the calculation of the period required to obtain a permanent right of residence with the consequence that that period has to start again on release.

Judges:

Silber J, Warr SIJ

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 164 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Prisons

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433622

Jorgenson, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: Admn 15 Apr 2011

The claimant challenged the decision of the defendant under section 254 of the 2003 Act to recall him to custody for using cannabis in breach of the licence conditions on which he was released from prison.

Judges:

Silber J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 977 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 2003 254

Prisons

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.432849

Chester, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parole Board: Admn 31 Mar 2011

The claimant sought judicial review of the Board’s refusal to recommend his release on licence. He had served 33 years in prison after conviction for the brutal rape and murder of his seven year old niece.

Judges:

Behrens J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 800 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.431615

Faulkner, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice The Parole Board: CA 29 Mar 2011

The court considered the approriate level of damages where the claimant’s detention had been wrongly extended through a failure to hold a timely review of his continued detention.
Held: A sum of andpound;10,000 was awarded. The court should not adjust its award according to the degree of probability of release had the violation not occurred.

Judges:

Sedley LJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 349

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Faulkner, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another Admn 5-Jun-2009
The claimant had sought to challenge his continued detention in prison when his situation should have been reviewed but had not been. As a lifer he had served the time set in his tariff.
Held: The applicant was unlawfully at large and had not . .
Main Appeal – Faulkner, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice The Parole Board CA 14-Dec-2010
The claimant sought damages saying that his detention in prison beyond the minimum period pending a review was unlawful when that review was delayed. He now appealed against dismissal of his claim when he had not appeared at court, being unlawfully . .

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights, Damages

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.431245

Golder v The United Kingdom: ECHR 21 Feb 1975

G was a prisoner who was refused permission by the Home Secretary to consult a solicitor with a view to bringing libel proceedings against a prison officer. The court construed article 6 of ECHR, which provides that ‘in the determination of his civil rights . . everyone is entitled to a fair . . hearing’, as requiring a right of access to a solicitor. ‘Article 6(1) does not state a right of access to the courts or tribunals in express terms. It enunciates rights which are distinct but stem from the same basic idea and which, taken together, make up a single right not specifically defined in the narrower sense of the term. It is the duty of the Court to ascertain, by means of interpretation, whether access to the courts constitutes one factor or aspect of this right . . The principle whereby a civil claim must be capable of being submitted to a judge ranks as one of the universally ‘recognised’ fundamental principles of law; the same is true of the principle of international law which forbids the denial of justice. Article 6(1) must be read in the light of these principles . . It follows that the right of access constitutes an element which is inherent in the right stated by Article 6(1).’

Citations:

4451/70, [1975] 1 EHRR 524, [1975] ECHR 1

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6-1

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Matthews v Ministry of Defence HL 13-Feb-2003
The claimant sought damages against the Crown, having suffered asbestosis whilst in the armed forces. He challenged the denial to him of a right of action by the 1947 Act.
Held: Human rights law did not create civil rights, but rather voided . .
Cited – European Roma Rights Centre and others v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and Another CA 20-May-2003
A scheme had been introduced to arrange pre-entry clearance for visitors to the United Kingdom by posting of immigration officers in the Czech Republic. The claimants argued that the system was discriminatory, because Roma visitors were now . .
Cited – Osman v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-Oct-1998
Police’s Complete Immunity was Too Wide
(Grand Chamber) A male teacher developed an obsession with a male pupil. He changed his name by deed poll to the pupil’s surname. He was required to teach at another school. The pupil’s family’s property was subjected to numerous acts of vandalism, . .
Cited – Osman v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-Oct-1998
Police’s Complete Immunity was Too Wide
(Grand Chamber) A male teacher developed an obsession with a male pupil. He changed his name by deed poll to the pupil’s surname. He was required to teach at another school. The pupil’s family’s property was subjected to numerous acts of vandalism, . .
Cited – Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) HL 10-Jul-2003
The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent lender of its . .
Cited – Kent Pharmaceuticals Ltd, (Regina on the Application of ) v Serious Fraud Office and Another Admn 17-Dec-2003
The claimant sought judicial review of the decision of the respondent to disclose documents obtained by it from them during an investigation.
Held: The decisions to disclose material to the DoH were ‘in accordance with law’ within the meaning . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Kehoe CA 5-Mar-2004
The claimant had applied to the Child Support Agncy for maintenance. They failed utterly to obtain payment, and she complained now that she was denied the opportunity by the 1991 Act to take court proceedings herself.
Held: The denial of . .
Cited – Regina (Kent Pharmaceuticals Ltd) v Serious Fraud Office CA 11-Nov-2004
In 2002 the SFO was investigating allegations that drug companies were selling generic drugs, including penicillin-based antibiotics and warfarin, to the National Health Service at artificially sustained prices. To further the investigation the SFO . .
Cited – Regina v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and another, ex parte European Roma Rights Centre and others HL 9-Dec-2004
Extension oh Human Rights Beyond Borders
The appellants complained that the system set up by the respondent where Home Office officers were placed in Prague airport to pre-vet applicants for asylum from Romania were dsicriminatory in that substantially more gypsies were refused entry than . .
Cited – Bowman v Fels (Bar Council and Others intervening) CA 8-Mar-2005
The parties had lived together in a house owned in the defendant’s name and in which she claimed an interest. The claimant’s solicitors notified NCIS that they thought the defendant had acted illegally in setting off against his VAT liability the . .
Cited – Her Majesty’s Attorney General for Gibraltar v Shimidzu (Berllaque, Intervenor) PC 28-Jun-2005
(Gibraltar) The appellants sought to argue that the failure to allow an acquitted defendant any possible order for costs was a breach of the Constitution.
Held: Section 8 of the Constitution, like its analogue article 6 of the European . .
Cited – Kehoe, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 14-Jul-2005
The applicant contended that the 1991 Act infringed her human rights in denying her access to court to obtain maintenance for her children.
Held: The applicant had no substantive right to take part in the enforcement process in domestic law . .
Cited – Hirst v United Kingdom (2) ECHR 6-Oct-2005
(Grand Chamber) The applicant said that whilst a prisoner he had been banned from voting. The UK operated with minimal exceptions, a blanket ban on prisoners voting.
Held: Voting is a right not a privilege. It was a right central in a . .
Cited – A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) HL 8-Dec-2005
Evidence from 3rd Party Torture Inadmissible
The applicants had been detained following the issue of certificates issued by the respondent that they posed a terrorist threat. They challenged the decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission saying that evidence underlying the . .
Cited – Regina (on the Application of Mazin Mumaa Galteh Al-Skeini and Others) v The Secretary of State for Defence CA 21-Dec-2005
The claimants were dependants of Iraqi nationals killed in Iraq.
Held: The Military Police were operating when Britain was an occupying power. The question in each case was whether the Human Rights Act applied to the acts of the defendant. The . .
Cited – Wright and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health Secretary of State for Education and Skills Admn 16-Nov-2006
The various applicants sought judicial review of the operation of the Protection of Vulnerable Adults List insofar as they had been placed provisionally on the list, preventing them from finding work. One complaint was that the list had operated . .
Cited – Seal v Chief Constable of South Wales Police HL 4-Jul-2007
The claimant had sought to bring proceedings against the respondent, but as a mental patient subject to the 1983 Act, had been obliged by the section first to obtain consent. The parties disputed whether the failure was a procedural or substantial . .
Cited – MGN Limited v United Kingdom ECHR 18-Jan-2011
The applicant publisher said that the finding against it of breach of confidence and the system of success fees infringed it Article 10 rights to freedom of speech. It had published an article about a model’s attendance at Narcotics anonymous . .
Cited – Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
Cited – Fairclough Homes Ltd v Summers SC 27-Jun-2012
The respondent had made a personal injury claim, but had then been discovered to have wildly and dishonestly exaggerated the damages claim. The defendant argued that the court should hand down some condign form of punishment, and appealed against . .
Cited – Belhaj and Another v Straw and Others SC 17-Jan-2017
The claimant alleged complicity by the defendant, (now former) Foreign Secretary, in his mistreatment by the US while held in Libya. He also alleged involvement in his unlawful abduction and removal to Libya, from which had had fled for political . .
Cited – Benkharbouche v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs SC 18-Oct-2017
The court was asked as to the compatibility of provisions in the 1978 Act with the human rights of the appellant. The claimants, Moroccan nationals were employed as domestic staff in embassies in London. They alleged both race discrimination and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.164863

Frodl v Austria: ECHR 8 Apr 2010

The applicant alleged that his disenfranchisement because he was serving a term of imprisonment of more than one year constituted a breach of his rights under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.

Judges:

Christos Rozakis, P

Citations:

(2011) 52 EHRR 5, [2010] ECHR 508, 20201/04

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights P1A3

Citing:

Admissibility – Frodl v Austria ECHR 8-Jan-2009
Admissibility . .

Cited by:

Cited – Tovey and Others v Ministry of Justice QBD 18-Feb-2011
The claimants, serving prisoners, sought damages saying that the refusal to allow them to vote was in infringement of their human rights. The large numbers of claims had been consolidated in London. The claimant sought to withdraw his claim.
Judgment – Helmut Frodl v Austria ECHR 14-Sep-2011
Execution of judgment . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons, Elections

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430520

Greens v The United Kingdom: ECHR 23 Nov 2010

The applicants alleged a violation of article 3 in the refusal to allow them to enrol on the electoral register whilst serving prison sentences.
Held: Where one of its judgments raises issues of general public importance and sensitivity, in respect of which the national authorities enjoy a discretionary area of judgment, it may be appropriate to leave the national legislature a reasonable period of time to address those issues.
The Court gave the United Kingdom six months to introduce legislative proposals to amend RPA section 3.

Judges:

Lech Garlicki, P

Citations:

[2010] ECHR 1826, 60041/08

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3, Representation of the People Act 1983 3

Citing:

See Also – Robert W Greens v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-Aug-2009
. .
See Also – Greens v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 12-Sep-2007
The defendant appealed against his sentence of seventeen years’ imprisonment for a violent rape. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Tovey and Others v Ministry of Justice QBD 18-Feb-2011
The claimants, serving prisoners, sought damages saying that the refusal to allow them to vote was in infringement of their human rights. The large numbers of claims had been consolidated in London. The claimant sought to withdraw his claim.
Cited – GC v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 18-May-2011
The court was asked to decide from whom DNA samples could lawfully be taken by the Police,and for how long they should be kept. The first respondent now said that a declaration of incompatibility of section 64(1A) could not be avoided.
Held: . .
See Also – Greens and Others, Re Application for Judicial Review SCS 12-May-2011
. .
Cited – GC v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 18-May-2011
The court was asked to decide from whom DNA samples could lawfully be taken by the Police,and for how long they should be kept. The first respondent now said that a declaration of incompatibility of section 64(1A) could not be avoided.
Held: . .
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 – 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 – Nicklinson and Another, Regina (on The Application of) SC 25-Jun-2014
Criminality of Assisting Suicide not Infringing
The court was asked: ‘whether the present state of the law of England and Wales relating to assisting suicide infringes the European Convention on Human Rights, and whether the code published by the Director of Public Prosecutions relating to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Scotland, Prisons, Elections

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430519

Hirst v The United Kingdom: ECHR 3 Dec 2009

(Resolutions) The court noted the long delay in the respondent in implementing the judgment of the court and giving prisoners voting rights, the present consultation and adjourned until March 2011 for further information.

Citations:

[2009] ECHR 2260, 4025/01

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Representation of the People Act 1983 3, European Convention on Human Rights 3

Citing:

At Commission – Hirst v The United Kingdom (No. 2) ECHR 30-Mar-2004
(Commission) The prisoner alleged that the denial of his right to vote whilst in prison was disproportionate. He was serving a life sentence for manslaughter.
Held: The denial of a right to vote was in infringement of his rights and . .
Grand Chamber – Hirst v United Kingdom (2) ECHR 6-Oct-2005
(Grand Chamber) The applicant said that whilst a prisoner he had been banned from voting. The UK operated with minimal exceptions, a blanket ban on prisoners voting.
Held: Voting is a right not a privilege. It was a right central in a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons, Elections

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430457

Bourgass and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: Admn 18 Feb 2011

The prisoner claimants each challenged the way that decisions had been taken which had led to their being held in segregation units. They said the procedures were unfair.
Held: The applications were dismissed. Article 3 was not engaged.

Judges:

Irwin J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 286 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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 . .
At first Instance – 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.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.429678

Carter v Ministry of Justice: QBD 12 Feb 2010

The claimant, whilst a prisoner, had consulted the prison doctor about a lump in her breast. She complained that her negligence and delay left her with a worse prognosis.
Held: If the doctor had undertaken the standard procedures on such a complaint, the claimant would have been referred on.

Judges:

Sir Christopher Holland

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 60 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Morris v West Hartlepool Steam Navigation HL 1956
The ship had followed a practice of leaving the between deck hatch covers off in the absence of a guard rail around the hatchway. The plaintiff seaman fell into the hold. There was evidence that on this ship it was quite usual for men to be sent . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence, Prisons

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.401001

Guntrip, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another: Admn 9 Dec 2010

The claimant prisoner should have had his detention reviewed after serving the tariff part of his sentence. He sought damages for the delay. The first hearing before the Board, following the expiry of the tariff, had not taken place until about two years after the latest date by which it ought to have been held.
Held: The court awarded andpound;1200 by way of damages.

Judges:

Ouseley J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 3188 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Applied – 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 – Faulkner, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another SC 1-May-2013
The applicants had each been given a life sentence, but having served the minimum term had been due to have the continued detention reviewed to establish whether or not continued detention was necessary for the protection of the pblic. It had not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Damages

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427949

Chester v Secretary of State for Justice and Wakefield Metropolitan District Council: CA 17 Dec 2010

The prisoner claimant appealed against refusal of his request for judicial review of his disenfranchisement whilst a prisoner.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. It was not possible to read into the Act as suggested a duty on a judge on sentencing

Judges:

Lord Neuberger MR, Laws LJ, Carnwath LJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1439, [2011] UKHRR 53, [2011] ACD 30, [2011] 1 WLR 1436, [2011] UKHRR 53

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Representation of the People Act 1983 3(1), European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Chester, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another Admn 28-Oct-2009
Burton J dismissed a claim for judicial review brought by the serving prisoner, to challenge his statutory disfranchisement from voting in domestic and European Parliamentary elections. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Tovey and Others v Ministry of Justice QBD 18-Feb-2011
The claimants, serving prisoners, sought damages saying that the refusal to allow them to vote was in infringement of their human rights. The large numbers of claims had been consolidated in London. The claimant sought to withdraw his claim.
Appeal from – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights, Constitutional, Elections

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.427268

Osborn and Another v The Parole Board: CA 15 Dec 2010

The three claimants complained that the respondent had made decisions adverse to them as to their release to or recall from parole.
Held: Review was refused. While there was ‘some force in the submission that, contrary to the understanding of the judge, there were significant factual disputes on matters relevant to the decision’. He considered however that the judge ‘was right to consider that the board’s decision on release did not ultimately depend on resolution of these issues’. The lack of information about the appellant’s current mental health status and the recommendation that a full psychiatric assessment should be carried out, combined with the very high risk of harm should he re-offend, provided ample reason for not allowing release

Judges:

Sedley, Carnwath, Moses LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1409, [2011] UKHRR 35

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 – 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: . .
Appeal from – Osborn v The Parole Board Admn 19-Mar-2010
The claimants complained that decisions had been made by the respondents without them having been first given a right to an oral hearing. They now sought permission to bring judicial review.
Held: Permission was refused. The facts in the . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Osborn v The Parole Board SC 9-Oct-2013
Three prisoners raised questions as to the circumstances in which the Parole Board is required to hold an oral hearing before making an adverse decision. One of the appeals (Osborn) concerned a determinate sentence prisoner who was released on . .
Applied – Reilly, Re Judicial Review CANI 6-Apr-2011
The applicant had been granted judicial review of a decision by the parole board not to grant his release on parole but without having afforded him an oral hearing. The Board now appealed.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The court followed the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 28 August 2022; Ref: scu.427177

Faulkner, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice The Parole Board: CA 14 Dec 2010

The claimant sought damages saying that his detention in prison beyond the minimum period pending a review was unlawful when that review was delayed. He now appealed against dismissal of his claim when he had not appeared at court, being unlawfully at large.
Held: The appeal was allowed: ‘(1) Mr Faulkner had suffered a breach of article 5(4) lasting for a period of 10 months, between March 2008 and January 2009, due to unjustified delays on the part of the Ministry of Justice. There had not been any unjustified delay by the Board in setting the hearing date, once all the reports were available.
(2) There was no reason in this case to award damages for a breach of article 5(4) on the basis of a loss of a real chance of earlier release. Rather, it was necessary for Mr Faulkner to show that he would have been released earlier if the breach had not occurred.
(3) Mr Faulkner had shown on the balance of probabilities that he would have been released if the review had taken place in about March 2008.
(4) As a result of the breach of article 5(4), Mr Faulkner had spent some 10 months in prison when he ought not to have done.’
The question of damages was reseerved.

Judges:

Hooper, Sedley, Wilson LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1434

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5.4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Faulkner, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another Admn 5-Jun-2009
The claimant had sought to challenge his continued detention in prison when his situation should have been reviewed but had not been. As a lifer he had served the time set in his tariff.
Held: The applicant was unlawfully at large and had not . .

Cited by:

Main Appeal – Faulkner, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice The Parole Board CA 29-Mar-2011
The court considered the approriate level of damages where the claimant’s detention had been wrongly extended through a failure to hold a timely review of his continued detention.
Held: A sum of andpound;10,000 was awarded. The court should . .
Main Appeal (Faulkner) – Faulkner, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another SC 1-May-2013
The applicants had each been given a life sentence, but having served the minimum term had been due to have the continued detention reviewed to establish whether or not continued detention was necessary for the protection of the pblic. It had not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 28 August 2022; Ref: scu.427173

Jakobski v Poland: ECHR 7 Dec 2010

The claimant, serving a long jail sentence, said that as a Buddhist, he needed a meat free diet. This was granted at first for medical reasons, but then withdrawn. All attempts failed, and he was mistreated by prison guards. The prison service denied any obligation to provide a diet special to his religious beliefs.
Held: ‘despite the margin of appreciation left to the respondent State, the Court finds that the authorities failed to strike a fair balance between the interests of the prison authorities and those of the applicant, namely the right to manifest his religion through observance of the rules of the Buddhist religion.’

Judges:

Nicolas Bratza, P

Citations:

18429/06, [2010] ECHR 1974, [2011] Eq LR 197, 30 BHRC 417, (2012) 55 EHRR 8

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights, European Prison Rules

Cited by:

Cited – Kevin Fox v United Kingdom ECHR 20-Mar-2012
The claimant said that he had been severely assaulted by police officers when being arrested. He had been ‘tasered’ four times at least. The taser had been applied directly to the skin, rater than from a distance, and psychiatrist compared it to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 28 August 2022; Ref: scu.426978

Regina on the Application of Giles v Parole Board and Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 4 Jul 2002

The prisoner had been sentenced to a punitive term, and an additional protective term under the Act. After the parole board had decided that he could be released from the punitive part of the sentence, he obtained declaration that the board should also periodically review the protective part of the sentence.
Held: The protective part of the sentence was fixed by the judge just because he had heard the evidence, and that part of a sentence was to be set and reviewed only by the judiciary.

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy, Lord Justice May and Lord Justice Tuckey

Citations:

Times 23-Jul-2002, Gazette 12-Sep-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 951, [2003] 2 WLR 196, [2003] 1 Cr App Rep (S) 392, [2002] 3 All ER 1123, [2002] Crim LR 743, [2003] 1 Cr App R (S) 392

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1991 2(2)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina on the Application of Clift v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 13-Jun-2003
The claimant had been sentenced to 18 years imprisonment. He challenged the differing treatment for parole purposes of those sentenced to more than 15 years, as infringing his human rights, insofar as the decision was retained by the Home Secretary. . .
Appeal from – 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 – Clift, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 29-Apr-2004
The claimant was a prisoner serving a determinate term exceeding 15 years. He complained that the respondent’s remaining juridsiction as to his release on licence infringed his human rights.
Held: This was the sole remaining element of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Prisons

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.174305

Oakes, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Others: CA 22 Oct 2010

The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim that his recall to prison had been unlawful, and for damages. The Parole Board had subsequently ordered his release.

Judges:

Pill, Rimer, Black LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1169

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425469

Grosskopf v Germany: ECHR 21 Oct 2010

The Court considered whether a sufficient causal connection existed between the applicant’s original conviction and his continuing preventive detention.
Held: The Court expressed concern about the apparent absence of any special measures, instruments or institutions to address the danger presented by persons subject to preventive detention and to limit the duration of their detention, but did so purely in the context of considering whether a sufficient causal connection existed between the applicant’s original conviction and his continuing preventive detention.

Citations:

24478/03, [2010] ECHR 1581

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Cited by:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425434

Howden, Regina (on The Application of) v The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire: Admn 15 Oct 2010

The claimant challenged a decision to return him to prison from release on licence. He said that in a non-urgent situation it was wrong for the Secretary of State to accept police intelligence without further enquiries.
Held: The claim failed. The test for misbehaviour short of the required standard is not a high one. Having information from a source deemed to be reliable, there was no obligation on the respondent to make further enquiries.

Judges:

Langan QC J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2521 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina (Gulliver) v Parole Board CA 4-Jul-2007
The claimant had been released on licence, and recalled. He complained that the parole board had, in considering his re-release taken into account circumstances beyond those which had directly caused his recall.
Held: The prisoner’s appeal . .
Cited – McDonagh, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 20-Jan-2010
When deciding whether a prisoner released on licence should be returned to prison, the question ‘is whether the Secretary of State could reasonably have believed on the material available to him that the claimant had not conducted himself by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425305

Jones, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parole Board: Admn 8 Oct 2010

The claimant challenged the decision to refuse to him recategorisation to category D. He complained of the weight given to evidence from a particular witness who spoke as to his character, but had never met him.
Held: The claim failed. The board had acted with access to substantial reports which would justify the decision without the evidence complained of.

Judges:

Langan QC J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2462 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.424957

Regan v Chief Constable of The West Midlands Police Force: Admn 28 May 2010

The prisoner was to be released, but had been refused a home detention curfew. The respondent had informed the prison that his life would be at risk if he was released to return to the address intended.

Judges:

The Recorder of Birmingham

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2297 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Humajn Rights 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.424076

Reilly, Re Judicial Review: QBNI 10 May 2010

The court had found that the respondent had acted in breach of the claimant’s human rights in making a decision against his release from prison on parole without affording an opportunity to make oral representations. It now considered the remedy.
Held: The appropriate remedy was the award of certiorari to quash the board’s decision. He declined to make an award of damages under section 8 of the Human Rights Act, noting that it was agreed that the appellant could not establish that he had been deprived of liberty as a result of the decision, and concluding that any frustration or distress which he might have suffered was not of such intensity as to justify an award of damages.

Judges:

Treacy J

Citations:

[2010] NIQB 56

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Reilly, Re Judicial Review QBNI 13-Apr-2010
The claimant said that a decision had been made as to his release from prison but without his having had opportunity to make oral representations.
Held: The board had acted in breach of its common law duty to act fairly, and incompatibly with . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Reilly, Re Judicial Review CANI 6-Apr-2011
The applicant had been granted judicial review of a decision by the parole board not to grant his release on parole but without having afforded him an oral hearing. The Board now appealed.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The court followed the . .
At first instance – Osborn v The Parole Board SC 9-Oct-2013
Three prisoners raised questions as to the circumstances in which the Parole Board is required to hold an oral hearing before making an adverse decision. One of the appeals (Osborn) concerned a determinate sentence prisoner who was released on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Northern Ireland, Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421865

Pilgrim, Regina (on the Application of) v Parole Board and Another: Admn 9 May 2008

The prisoner appealed refusal of his release under licence. Being a long term prisoner he was to be considered for release after half his sentence was complete under the 1991 Act.

Judges:

Saunders J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1019 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1991 35(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.267582

Home Office v Butchart: CA 15 Mar 2006

The claimant prisoner said theat the prison had been negligent in that knowing of his own psychiatric vulnerability, he had been placed in a cell with another priosner who committed suicide, the shock of which caused the claimant further damage.

Judges:

Lord Justice May Lord Justice Longmore Lord Justice Latham

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 239, [2006] 1 WLR 1155

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Barber v Somerset County Council HL 1-Apr-2004
A teacher sought damages from his employer after suffering a work related stress breakdown.
Held: The definition of the work expected of him did not justify the demand placed upon him. The employer could have checked up on him during his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Negligence, Personal Injury

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.239139

Buddington, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: QBD 14 Oct 2005

The prisoner complained that he had been recalled to prison under the new regulations after his release on licence in respect of an allegation of a breach which had occurred before the new regulations came into effect.
Held: The recall applying the new regulations was proper under the transitional provisions.

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2198 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Buddington, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 14-Oct-2005
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Buddington v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 27-Mar-2006
The court considered the validity of of the claimant’s recall to prison. The words ‘falls to be released’ in paragraph 23 mean ‘is entitled to be released’ or ‘is released’. The author of the Order may have been suffering from ‘Homeric exhaustion’. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.231100

Roose v The Parole Board and Another: Admn 16 Jul 2010

If representations made in support of the prisoner’s request for an oral hearing raise issues which place in question anything in the provisional decision which may in practice have a significant impact on the prisoner’s future management in prison or on his future reviews, such as reports of poor behaviour or recommendations that particular courses should be undertaken to reduce risk, it will usually follow that an oral hearing should be allowed for that reason alone, even if there is no doubt that the prisoner should remain in custody or in closed conditions

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 1780 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Osborn v The Parole Board SC 9-Oct-2013
Three prisoners raised questions as to the circumstances in which the Parole Board is required to hold an oral hearing before making an adverse decision. One of the appeals (Osborn) concerned a determinate sentence prisoner who was released on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.420808

Reilly, Re Judicial Review: QBNI 13 Apr 2010

The claimant said that a decision had been made as to his release from prison but without his having had opportunity to make oral representations.
Held: The board had acted in breach of its common law duty to act fairly, and incompatibly with the appellant’s Convention rights under article 5(4), in failing to provide him with an oral hearing.

Judges:

Treacy J

Citations:

[2010] NIQB 46

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

See Also – Reilly, Re Judicial Review QBNI 10-May-2010
The court had found that the respondent had acted in breach of the claimant’s human rights in making a decision against his release from prison on parole without affording an opportunity to make oral representations. It now considered the remedy. . .
Appeal from – Reilly, Re Judicial Review CANI 6-Apr-2011
The applicant had been granted judicial review of a decision by the parole board not to grant his release on parole but without having afforded him an oral hearing. The Board now appealed.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The court followed the . .
At First Instance – Osborn v The Parole Board SC 9-Oct-2013
Three prisoners raised questions as to the circumstances in which the Parole Board is required to hold an oral hearing before making an adverse decision. One of the appeals (Osborn) concerned a determinate sentence prisoner who was released on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Northern Ireland, Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.416008

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte O’Dhuibir and Another: CA 27 Feb 1997

The insistence on the use of glass screens and no physical contact between a prisoner and visitors was in exceptional circumstances upheld even for visits by friends and relatives.

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 1110

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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.

Prisons

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.141506

Buddington v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 27 Mar 2006

The court considered the validity of of the claimant’s recall to prison. The words ‘falls to be released’ in paragraph 23 mean ‘is entitled to be released’ or ‘is released’. The author of the Order may have been suffering from ‘Homeric exhaustion’.

Judges:

Lord Justice May Sir Peter Gibson President of the Queens Bench Division

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 280, [2006] 2 Cr App R (S) 109

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Commencement No 8 and Transitional and Saving Provisions) Order 2005 23

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Buddington, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 14-Oct-2005
The prisoner complained that he had been recalled to prison under the new regulations after his release on licence in respect of an allegation of a breach which had occurred before the new regulations came into effect.
Held: The recall . .
See Also – Buddington, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 14-Oct-2005
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Stellato, Regina (on the Application of)v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 28-Feb-2007
The prisoner had served part of his ten year sentence, been released on licence and then recalled. He complained that the new parole system under which he had then to apply was invalid, having been made Parliament by negative resolution.
Held: . .
Cited – Noone, Regina (on The Application of) v Governor of HMP Drake Hall and Another SC 30-Jun-2010
The prisoner had been sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment, one for less, and one for more than 12 months. She disputed the date on which she should be released to home detention under curfew under the Guidance issued by the Secretary of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.239602

Regina (on the Application of ‘S’) v the Secretary of Statefor the Home Department: CA 4 Apr 2003

The patient had been released on licence from prison. He later refused treatment for mental illness and was detained under the 1983 Act, though still on licence. His probation obtained the revocation of his licence, and he was recalled. He did not know of the revocation of his licence, but absconded from the hospital and re-arrested.
Held: The section allowed that either a licensee was detained under a court sentence or at large. For the purposes of calculating a revised licence expiry date, the time spend detained in the mental hospital counted as time spent unlawfully at large and did not count to reduce the time to be spent in prison.

Judges:

Lord Justice Rix Lord Justice Simon Brown Lord Justice Scott Baker

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 426

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prison Act 1952 49(2), Mental Health Act 1983 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina (S) v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 5-Nov-2002
The applicant was mentally ill, and had at various times received inpatient treatment, and also detained. After conviction for harassment offences he was imprisoned, but then again hospitalized and detained under s3 whilst released in licence. Upon . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (S) v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 5-Nov-2002
The applicant was mentally ill, and had at various times received inpatient treatment, and also detained. After conviction for harassment offences he was imprisoned, but then again hospitalized and detained under s3 whilst released in licence. Upon . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Prisons

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.181398

Soyler v Turkey: ECHR 17 Sep 2013

ECHR Article 3 of Protocol No. 1
Vote
Automatic and indiscriminate disenfranchisement of persons convicted of intentional offences, irrespective of the nature and gravity of the offence: violation
Facts – Under Turkish law, persons convicted of having intentionally committed an offence are unable to vote. Their disenfranchisement does not come to an end if they are released from prison on probation, but only when the full period for which they were originally sentenced has elapsed. Likewise, when a prison sentence longer than one year is suspended and the convicted person does not serve any time in prison, he or she will still be unable to vote for the duration of the period for which the sentence is suspended.
The applicant was given a five-year sentence for cheque fraud in 2007. He was released on probation two years later. Between 2007 and 2012 two general elections were held but he was unable to vote in either.
Law – Article 3 of Protocol No. 1: In so far as the restrictions placed on voting rights in Turkey were applicable to convicted persons who did not even serve a prison term, they were harsher and more far-reaching than those applicable in the United Kingdom, Austria and Italy, which had been the subject matter of examination by the Court in its judgments in the cases of Hirst (no. 2), Frodl and Scoppola (no. 3). In Turkey, disenfranchisement was an automatic consequence derived from statute, and was therefore not left to the discretion or supervision of the judiciary. Moreover, unlike the situation in Italy which had been examined in the case of Scoppola (no. 3), the measure restricting the right to vote in Turkey was indiscriminate in its application in that it did not take into account the nature or gravity of the offence, the length of the prison sentence – leaving aside suspended sentences of less than one year – or the individual circumstances of the convicted persons. The Turkish legislation contained no express provisions categorising or specifying any offences for which disenfranchisement was foreseen. The Court did not consider that the sole requirement of the element of ‘intent’ in the commission of the offence was sufficient to lead it to conclude that the current legal framework adequately protected the rights in question and did not impair their very essence or deprive them of their effectiveness. As such, the applicant’s case illustrated the indiscriminate application of the restriction even to persons convicted of relatively minor offences. Furthermore, the Court was also unable to see any rational connection between the sanction and the applicant’s conduct and circumstances. The automatic and indiscriminate application of this harsh measure on a vitally important Convention right had to be seen as falling outside any acceptable margin of appreciation.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: Finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage.
(See: Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], 74025/01, 6 October 2005, Information Note 79; Frodl v. Austria, 20201/04, 8 April 2010, Information Note 129; and Scoppola v. Italy (no. 3) [GC], 126/05, 22 May 2012, Information Note 152)

Citations:

29411/07 – Legal Summary, [2013] ECHR 962, [2013] ECHR 1198

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights, Elections

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.516478

Abdullah, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 29 Jan 2010

The claimant had secured entry from the Sudan. He had been convicted and served time for serious offences, and was to be deported. The Sudanese authorities denied his nationality and he had served the equivalent of six years imprisonment pending deportation. He now sought judicial review of the refusal of his release from administrative detention.

Judges:

Lord Carlile of Berriew QC

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 259 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Crime, Prisons

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.402725