Challenge to lawfulness of removal form association in immigration detention
[2019] EWCA Civ 784
European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.636711
[2018] EWHC 2957 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.630556
The applicant was a foreign national serving a long-term prison sentence. He complained that UK nationals would have had their case referred to the parole board before his.
Held: The right to be referred to the parole board was a statutory right, which was not the same as an article 3 right to liberty and not to be discriminated against. In the light of Giles and Smith it was clear that the facts of these cases were outside the ambit of Article 5, and therefore neither respondent could rely on Article 14. The decision letter did what it was required to do. It explained to the prisoner why his application was being refused. The reasons were personal to him, and had nothing to do with the attitude of Syria. The Home Secretary’s appeal succeeded.
Lord Justice Kennedy Lord Justice Sedley Lord Justice Neuberger
[2004] EWCA Civ 1309, Times 26-Oct-2004
European Convention on Human Rights 3, Criminal Justice Act 1991
England and Wales
Cited – Webster v United Kingdom ECHR 4-Mar-1987
(Commission) An American citizen was detained in England, and eventually deported to France. He complained that there was discrimination against foreign nationals, who did not challenge orders for deportation but sought parole. That was disputed by . .
Cited – Grice v United Kingdom ECHR 1994
(Year?) The applicant was a serving prisoner suffering from AIDS, who complained that aids sufferers were being discriminated against because unlike those suffering other medical conditions they were not released early on compassionate grounds. The . .
Cited – Michalak v London Borough of Wandsworth CA 6-Mar-2002
The appellant had occupied for a long time a room in a house let by the authority. After the death of the tenant, the appellant sought, but was refused, a statutory tenancy. He claimed to be a member of the tenant’s family, and that the list of . .
Cited – Petrovic v Austria ECHR 27-Mar-1998
The applicant was refused a grant of parental leave allowance in 1989. At that time parental leave allowance was available only to mothers. The applicant complained that this violated article 14 taken together with article 8.
Held: The . .
Cited – Regina v Governor of Her Majesty’s Prison Brockhill ex parte Evans (No 2) HL 27-Jul-2000
The release date for a prisoner was calculated correctly according to guidance issued by the Home Office, but case law required the guidance to be altered, and the prisoner had been detained too long. The tort of false imprisonment is one of strict . .
Cited – Giles, Regina (on the Application of) v Parole Board and Another HL 31-Jul-2003
The defendant had been sentenced for offences of violence, but an additional period was imposed to protect the public. He had been refused leave for reconsideration of that part of his sentence after he completed the normal segment of his sentence. . .
Cited – Regina (Smith) v Parole Board (No 2) CA 31-Jul-2003
The applicant having been released on licence had his licence revoked. The decision had been made at a hearing which considered evidence on paper only, which he said was unfair.
Held: The case law had maintained a proper distinction between . .
Cited – Douglas v North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council CA 19-Dec-2003
The applicant had sought a student loan to support his studies as a mature student. It was refused because he would be over 55 at the date of the commencement of the course. He claimed this was discriminatory.
Held: The Convention required the . .
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 . .
Cited – Karlheinz Schmidt v Germany ECHR 18-Jul-1994
Article 14 of the Convention operates not by way of the conferral of a freestanding right not to be discriminated against, but rather by way of complementing the other substantive provisions of the Convention and the Protocols. It has no independent . .
Cited – Van Raalte v The Netherlands ECHR 21-Feb-1997
A was an unmarried childless man over 45 complaining of a law which exempted unmarried childless women over 45 from paying contributions under the General Child Benefits Act. Apart from the exempted women, the entire adult population was subject to . .
Cited – Regina v Parole Board Ex Parte White QBD 16-Dec-1994
The concept of ‘risk’ was not confined to risk to the United Kingdom public alone, as a result of which the Parole Board is entitled, indeed, in an appropriate case, required, to take into account the risk to the public in a country to which a . .
Cited – Botta v Italy ECHR 24-Feb-1998
The claimant, who was disabled, said that his Article 8 rights were infringed because, in breach of Italian law, there were no facilities to enable him to get to the sea when he went on holiday.
Held: ‘Private life . . includes a person’s . .
Cited – Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza HL 21-Jun-2004
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession
The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law . .
Cited – Carson and Reynolds v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 17-Jun-2003
The claimant Reynolds challenged the differential treatment by age of jobseeker’s allowance. Carson complained that as a foreign resident pensioner, her benefits had not been uprated. The questions in each case were whether the benefit affected a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.216421
The applicant was serving two life sentences for Mafia related activities. He challenged nine decrees issued by the Minister of Justice under which he was held under a special prison regime for a period of four years. His case related to delays by the courts in dealing with his challenge. The Court said: ‘the applicant was contesting the lawfulness of restrictions imposed on a series of rights commonly recognised to prisoners . . at least some of the serious restrictions laid down by the decrees . . such as the one restricting his contact with his family and the ones affecting his finances – certainly fell within the sphere of personal rights and were therefore civil in nature.’
41576/98, [2003] ECHR 566, (2005) 41 EHRR 16
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Applied – Gulmez v Turkey ECHR 20-May-2008
The applicant complained inter alia of successive decisions which had deprived him of visitation rights for about a year as punishment for disciplinary offences whilst in prison.
Held: ‘the restriction on the applicant’s visiting rights . .
Applied – Enea v Italy ECHR 17-Sep-2009
(Grand Chamber) The applicant, a prisoner serving a long sentence for Mafia-type criminal offences, was subjected to a special regime by ministerial decrees. The restrictions included not only very limited family visits but also a long period . .
Cited – King, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 27-Mar-2012
In each case the prisoners challenged their transfer to cellular confinement or segregation within prison or YOI, saying that the transfers infringed their rights under Article 6, saying that domestic law, either in itself or in conjunction with . .
Cited – King, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 27-Mar-2012
In each case the prisoners challenged their transfer to cellular confinement or segregation within prison or YOI, saying that the transfers infringed their rights under Article 6, saying that domestic law, either in itself or in conjunction with . .
Cited – Stegarescu and Bahrin v Portugal ECHR 6-Apr-2010
The two applicants complained that they had been held in solitary confinement for seven months after receipt of intelligence about an escape plan.
Held: There had been a violation of the prisoners’ article 6 rights. They had been given no . .
Cited – Boulois v Luxembourg ECHR 14-Dec-2010
The applicant was serving a long sentence for serious offences. He had submitted several requests for ‘prison leave’ in order to carry out tasks in preparation for his eventual release. These had been refused by the Attorney General. The domestic . .
Cited – King v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 13-Oct-2010
The claimant sought judicial review of decisions that the claimant had committed a disciplinary offence whilst in custody at a Young Offenders Institute.
Held: The claim failed.
Pitchford LJ considered the ECHR jurisprudence, and said: . .
Cited – 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.
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213554
The applicant had been sentenced to 50 years’ imprisonment for several offences. He had leukemia and was to receive chemotherapy in hospital. He complained of the conditions to which he was subjected during the hospital visits, including the behaviour of the guards, and the fact that he had been chained to the hospital bed. Medical reports recommended that he be transferred to a specialist clinic, but there was delay in acting on that recommendation. Subsequently, he was released on licence, subject to the condition of obtaining medical treatment. He made two main complaints of breach of Article 3. First, as to the failure to release him from custody in the face of the medical advice. Secondly, as to the circumstances in which he had been restrained and handcuffed.
Held: The court made general observations in relation to Article 3: ‘The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum level is, in the nature of things, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim . . Although the purpose of such treatment is a factor to be taken into account, in particular whether it was intended to humiliate or debase the victim, the absence of any such purpose does not inevitably lead to a finding that there has been no violation of Article 3’
As to handcuffing, the court said: ‘The Court reiterates that handcuffing does not normally give rise to an issue under Article 3 of the Convention where the measure has been imposed in connection with a lawful detention and does not entail use of force, or public exposure, exceeding what is reasonably considered necessary. In this regard, it is important to consider, for instance, whether there is a danger that the person concerned might abscond or cause injury or damage . . In the instant case, having regard to the applicant’s health, to the fact that he was being taken to hospital, to the discomfort of undergoing a chemotherapy session and to his physical weakness, the Court considers that the use of handcuffs was disproportionate to the needs of security. As regards the danger presented by the applicant, and notwithstanding his criminal record, the Court notes the absence of any previous conduct or other evidence giving serious grounds to fear that there was a significant danger of his absconding or resorting to violence. Lastly, the Court notes the recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture concerning the conditions in which prisoners are transferred to hospital to undergo medical examinations – conditions which, in the Committee’s opinion, continue to raise problems in terms of medical ethics and respect for human dignity . . The applicant’s descriptions of the conditions in which he was escorted to and from hospital do not seem very far removed from the situations causing the Committee concern in this area.’
67263/01, [2002] ECHR 734, [2002] ECHR 740, [2011] ECHR 2109
European Convention on Human Rights 3
Cited – Faizovas, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 9-May-2008
Challenge by elderly prisoner with cancer to be handcuffed whilst attending hospital. He was in prison for a violent sexual offence, and whilst in prison had not engaged in offending reducing programs. . .
Cited – C, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 28-Jul-2008
The court was asked as to what methods of physical restraint were proper in institutions accommodating youths in custody.
Held: The Court had been wrong not to quash the amended rules on the grounds of procedural breaches. The amended rules . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213250
Lord Bingham set out the difficulties faced by the Parole Board when dealing with prisoners who maintained their denials of guilt: ‘Convicted prisoners who persistently deny commission of the offence or offences of which they have been convicted present the Parole Board with potentially very difficult decisions. Such prisoners will probably not express contrition or remorse or sympathy for any victim. They will probably not engage in programmes designed to address the causes of their offending behaviour. Since they do not admit having offended they will only undertake not to do in the future what they do not accept having done in the past. Where there is no admission of guilt, it may be feared that a prisoner will lack any motivation to obey the law in future. Even in such cases, however, the task of the Parole Board is the same as in any other case: to assess the risk that the particular prisoner if released on parole, will offend again. In making this assessment the Parole Board must assume the correctness of any conviction. It can give no credence to the prisoner’s denial. Such denial will always be a factor and may be a very significant factor in the Board’s assessment of risk, but it will only be one factor and must be considered in the light of all other relevant factors. In almost any case the Board would be quite wrong to treat the prisoner’s denial as irrelevant, but also quite wrong to treat a prisoner’s denial as necessarily conclusive against the grant of parole.’
Lord Bingham of Cornhill LCJ
Unreported, 1 March 2000
England and Wales
Appeal from – Regina v Parole Board and others ex parte Oyston Admn 28-Jul-1999
. .
Cited – Roberts, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 12-Mar-2004
The claimant complained at a decision not to reduce his Category A status to that of a category B prisoner. He continued to maintain his innocence of the murders for which he had been convicted. He was therefore ineligible to take part in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.416335
[2012] EWCA Civ 1182
England and Wales
Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.464226
The claimant had a long history of serious criminal involvement, escapes from custody and committing further offences whilst free. Having been released on licence and returned to prison for breaches of his licence curfew conditions. He said that he had needed to see his father who was dying. He complained also of the delay in obtaining a speedy hearing.
Collins J
[2008] EWHC 997 (Admin)
England and Wales
Cited – Cooper, Regina (on the Application of) v Parole Board Admn 18-May-2007
The prisoner complained that the Prison service had set a target ot 55 days for hearing a request for a review after a prisoner’s recall.
Held: The prisoner’s case involved a wait of 59 days. The target itself was unlawful in that it failed to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.267576
Challenge to refusal of request of prisoner to be allowed to serve balance of long sentence in home country.
Dyson J
[2008] EWHC 1195 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.270065
Application to be placed in a Protected Witness Unit.
[2003] EWHC 406 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.201617
[2001] EWCA Civ 640
England and Wales
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.201004
The prisoner had been sentenced for serious frauds, and was subject to a long sentence. He complained that the governor had amended his prison categorisation from D to B, resulting in the loss of chance to stay in an open prison without giving him opportunity to make representations.
Held: The governor was under no duty to provide that opportunity. The prisoner had a right of appeal which was sufficient protection. The treatment of life prisoners and non-life prisoners was different. The appeal was allowed on other grounds.
Collins J
[2004] EWHC 1817 (Admin)
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another, Ex Parte Allen CA 10-Mar-2000
No right arose in favour of a prisoner to see the document upon which a decision to refuse him early release under a home detention and curfew scheme had been made, nor to make representations before completion of the assessment. No procedural . .
Cited – Regina (Hirst) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 8-Mar-2001
The prisoner had been re-categorised and transferred to a higher category prison.
Held: A life sentence serving prisoner, who had served the tariff period, and was moving into the period of discretionary detention, was entitled to be informed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199833
The claimant worked as a training assistant at a secure training centre. After she used a recommended restraint method on a child, the child died, and she had herself become unable to continue to work. She claimed liability in the recommendation of an unsafe forcible restraint method. She appealed against rejection of her claim on the grounds that she had not in fact used the recommended method, and had persisted despite recommendations in the guidance to desist if it became unsafe.
Held: The respondent had known that the technique needed review, and had failed to do so. The claimant’s failure was not in misapplying the technique but in its excess use.
Had the respondent caused the injury? Causation in negligence claims is one of fairness. Though the respondent was at fault, it could not be said that that fault contributed to the damage suffered by the claimant. The appeal failed.
Laws, Patten Sedley LJJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 99
England and Wales
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.400995
Mr Justice Sullivan
[2004] EWHC 1921 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200313
The claimants had been imprisoned for many years before their convictions were quashed. They claimed compensation under the Act. The assessor said that there should be deducted from the award the living expenses they would have incurred if they had not been in prison.
Held: The statutory scheme replaced an ex gratia scheme, and there was little guidance as to the calculations involved. The ex gratia scheme had required the payments to be made on common law principles where these were clearly analgous. Two considerations applied: the closeness of ‘the fit’ between the nature of the claim under the scheme and any civil law candidates as sources for analogous principles of assessment. Second is, if there is such ‘a fit’, the clarity and/or precision of such analogous principles as tools or guides for assessment of scheme compensation. The Independent Assessor should, save where it was unjust or otherwise inappropriate, apply common law principles whenever such principles are clear and capable of application by analogy. For non-pecuniary loss, this will usually involve principles of the assessment of damages for malicious prosecution and/or false imprisonment.’ The legislation was intended to provide for all forms of loss, including loss of reputation, subject to deductions from all but any personal injury element.
Lord Justice Auld Mr Justice Gage Lord Justice Longmore
[2004] EWCA Civ 1035, Times 07-Sep-2004
England and Wales
Cited – Thompson v Commissioner of Police of Metropolis; Hsu v Same CA 20-Feb-1997
CS Damages of 200,000 pounds by way of exemplary damages had been awarded against the police for unlawful arrest and assault.
Held: The court gave a guideline maximum pounds 50,000 award against police for . .
Cited – Commissioner of Police for Metropolis v Gerald CA 10-Jun-1998
Damages for distress falling short of physical injury should be recovered as an element of any aggravated damages, not as part of the basic award. A failure to discipline a police officer responsible for the injury was not capable of aggravating the . .
Appeal from – Regina (on the Application of O’Brien, Hickey, Hickey) v Independent Assessor QBD 16-Apr-2003
The claimants were to be awarded damages for having been wrongly imprisoned for many years. The respondent was to calculate the award. They complained that he had refused to particularise the award to identify and itemise non-pecuniary loss.
Cited – English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd; etc, (Practice Note) CA 30-Apr-2002
Judge’s Reasons Must Show How Reached
In each case appeals were made, following Flannery, complaining of a lack of reasons given by the judge for his decision.
Held: Human Rights jurisprudence required judges to put parties into a position where they could understand how the . .
Cited – Lunt v Liverpool City Justices CA 5-Mar-1991
A man of good reputation had been imprisoned for forty two days wholly unjustifiably for alleged default in payment of rates. He sought damages.
Held: The Court increased the award from andpound;13,500.00 to andpound;25,000.00. Commenting on . .
Cited – Walter v Alltools 1944
The court considered damages to be awarded for false imprisonment: ‘ . . any evidence which tends to aggravate or mitigate the damage to a man’s reputation which flows naturally from his imprisonment must be admissible up to the moment when damages . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody and Others HL 25-Jun-1993
A mandatory lifer is to be permitted to suggest the period of actual sentence to be served. The Home Secretary must give reasons for refusing a lifer’s release. What fairness requires in any particular case is ‘essentially an intuitive judgment’, . .
Cited – De Silva Pontes v Portugal ECHR 23-Mar-1994
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (six month period); Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and . .
Cited – Rolf Gustafson v Sweden ECHR 1-Jul-1997
Article 6 was engaged by an application for compensation under a statutory compensation scheme. . .
Cited – Runa Begum v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (First Secretary of State intervening) HL 13-Feb-2003
The appellant challenged the procedure for reviewing a decision made as to the suitability of accomodation offered to her after the respondent had accepted her as being homeless. The procedure involved a review by an officer of the council, with an . .
Cited – Meah v McCreamer (No 1) QBD 1985
The claimant had suffered serious brain damage as a result of the defendant’s negligence, resulting in a personality change which caused him to commit offences for which he was imprisoned. He sought damages for that imprisonment.
Held: Woolf J . .
Cited – Hodgson v Trapp HL 10-Nov-1988
The question was whether the attendance and mobility allowances which were payable to the plaintiff pursuant to statute should be deducted from damages she had received for personal injury.
Held: They should be. Damages for negligence are . .
Cited – Dews v National Coal Board HL 1988
The plaintiff miner sought damages for an injury suffered at work.
Held: An employee who had been injured at work could not recover unpaid pension contributions, which had no effect on his pension entitlement, as part of his loss of pay while . .
Cited – Lim Poh Choo v Camden and Islington Area Health Authority HL 21-Jun-1979
The plaintiff was catastrophically injured. Her life expectation was not affected, but she would never be able to work at her expected profession as a doctor, and was entitled to recover for loss of earnings. The defendant said that there was in . .
Cited – Regina v Butcher CACD 1989
Where two defendants receive different sentences from different judges on indistinguishable facts, criminal records and personal circumstances and the one receiving the harsher sentence appeals on the basis of disparity, the Court will only allow . .
Cited – Regina v National Insurance Commissioner, ex parte Social Services Secretary CA 1981
The court emphasised the need for consistency in relation to decisions of a social service commissioner. . .
Cited – Regina v Poplar Coroner ex parte Thomas CA 15-Dec-1992
The deceased, aged 17, had had a severe asthma attack. The ambulance was delayed and she was taken to the hospital, but died on the way there despite assistance from police officers and latterly the ambulance staff. Evidence suggested that she might . .
Cited – Regina v Hertfordshire County Council, ex parte Cheung 4-Apr-1986
The court emphasised the need for consistency in the award of educational grants. . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Urmaza QBD 23-Jul-1996
A deportee after a marriage was to be treated in the same way as others despite desertion from ship. The application of the Home Secretary’s discretion under the Policy was in issue. The case ‘raises a novel question about the extent to which . .
Cited – M v the Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 19-Feb-2003
The applicant had been given indefinite leave to remain in England, but was later convicted of indecent assault, and recommended for deportation. On appeal the court said that the order for deportation was disproportionate. After serving his . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Gangadeen Admn 15-Nov-1996
The Court should not intervene in a minister’s decision in application of his own policy unless he disregarded it, or the decision was inherently irrational. . .
Cited – Pickett v British Rail Engineering HL 2-Nov-1978
Lost Earnings claim Continues after Death
The claimant, suffering from mesothelioma, had claimed against his employers and won, but his claim for loss of earnings consequent upon his anticipated premature death was not allowed. He began an appeal, but then died. His personal representatives . .
Cited – ex parte Wilkins 2000
The rules requiring consistency of decisions does not require a decision-maker to repeat what he sees to be a past error. . .
Cited – Lim Poh Choo v Camden and Islington Area Health Authority HL 21-Jun-1979
The plaintiff was catastrophically injured. Her life expectation was not affected, but she would never be able to work at her expected profession as a doctor, and was entitled to recover for loss of earnings. The defendant said that there was in . .
Cited – Harris v Empress Motors CA 1984
When calculating a dependency loss, the modern practice was ‘to deduct a percentage from the net income figure to represent what the deceased would have spent exclusively on himself’. The conventional figure for a married couple was said to be 33% . .
Application for leave – Hickey and others v Independent Assessor CA 25-Feb-2004
Application for leave to appeal on measure of award of compensation for long time spent in prison as a result of miscarriage of justice. . .
Appeal from – O’Brien and others v Independent Assessor HL 14-Mar-2007
The claimants had been wrongly imprisoned for a murder they did not commit. The assessor had deducted from their compensation a sum to represent the living costs they would have incurred if living freely. They also appealed differences from a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199734
The discretionary life-prisoner faced a parole board. The Secretary of State wished to present evidence, but wanted the witness to be protected. The Parole Board appointed special counsel to hear the evidence on behalf of the prisoner on terms that the prisoner was not to know of the evidence. The prisoner appealed.
Held: The appeal failed. The Board had an inherent power to control its own procedures. The Act was silent as to its procedures. It had a duty to hear the evidence and to protect a witness. The Board counted as a court for the purposes of Human Rights Law, and needed to be and to be seen to be free of influence from the Secretary of State in relation to the performance of its judicial functions. The appointment of a special counsel operated as the best protection available in the circumstances to the prisoner. Fairness had to be judged on the facts of each case. In this case it had been as fair as it could be made.
Lord Justice Tuckey, Lord Justice Clarke, Mr Justice Jackson
[2004] EWCA Civ 1031, Times 06-Sep-2004, [2005] QB 410, [2008] 1 WLR 1950
England and Wales
Appeal from – Roberts v Parole Board Admn 19-Dec-2003
The prisoner had been convicted in 1996 of the murder of three police officers. His tariff had been fixed at 30 years. Material was to be placed before the parole board which was not to be disclosed to the appellant or his legal advisers. Instead it . .
Cited – Stafford v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-May-2002
Grand Chamber – The appellant claimed damages for being held in prison beyond the term of his sentence. Having been released on licence from a life sentence for murder, he was re-sentenced for a cheque fraud. He was not released after the end of the . .
Cited – Hussain v The United Kingdom ECHR 21-Feb-1996
The determination of a life sentence by the Home Secretary without recourse to a court was unlawful. There had been a violation of article 5(4) because the applicant who had been detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure was unable, after the expiry of his . .
Cited – West, Regina (on the Application of) v Parole Board CA 13-Nov-2002
The prisoner had been released on licence, but then recalled and re-arrested it being alleged that he was in breach of his conditions. His solicitors sought to represent him at the hearing of the parole board which considered whether to recommend . .
Cited – Regina on the Application of Brooks v The Parole Board CA 10-Feb-2004
The court had to decide the extent to which the Parole Board could rely on hearsay evidence in a case in which a discretionary life prisoner’s licence had been revoked. The evidence was crucial to the issue of risk.
Held: (majority) The . .
Cited – Regina v Parole Board, ex Parte Watson CA 11-Mar-1996
The test as to whether there was still a need to protect the public safety from the defendant was just as appropriate when considering the revocation of a licence, as it was when the need for continued detention was being reviewed before the grant . .
Cited – Taylor v Lawrence CA 4-Feb-2002
A party sought to re-open a judgment on the Court of Appeal after it had been perfected. A case had been tried before a judge. One party had asked for a different judge to be appointed, after the judge disclosed that he had been a client of the firm . .
Cited – The Secretary Of State For The Home Department v Shafiq Ur Rehman CA 23-May-2000
An intention to promote terrorist activity was sufficient to found an order for deportation even though the terrorism may not be directed at any person or property in the UK. Such activity is capable of constituting a threat to national security. . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman HL 11-Oct-2001
The applicant, a Pakistani national had entered the UK to act as a Muslim priest. The Home Secretary was satisfied that he was associated with a Muslim terrorist organisation, and refused indefinite leave to remain. The Home Secretary provided both . .
Cited – Regina v Shayler HL 21-Mar-2002
The defendant had been a member of the security services. On becoming employed, and upon leaving, he had agreed to keep secret those matters disclosed to him. He had broken those agreements and was being prosecuted. He sought a decision that the . .
Cited – Regina v H; Regina v C HL 5-Feb-2004
Use of Special Counsel as Last Resort Only
The accused faced charges of conspiring to supply Class A drugs. The prosecution had sought public interest immunity certificates. Special counsel had been appointed by the court to represent the defendants’ interests at the applications.
Cited – Stott (Procurator Fiscal, Dunfermline) and Another v Brown PC 5-Dec-2000
The system under which the registered keeper of a vehicle was obliged to identify herself as the driver, and such admission was to be used subsequently as evidence against her on a charge of driving with excess alcohol, was not a breach of her right . .
Cited – Tinnelly and Sons Ltd and Others and McElduff and Others v United Kingdom ECHR 10-Jul-1998
Legislation which disallowed claimants who asserted that they had been discriminated against, on the grounds of their religious background, from appealing through the courts system, was a clear breach of their human rights. A limitation will not be . .
Appeal from – Roberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .
Cited – McGetrick, Regina (on The Application of) v Parole Board and Another CA 14-Mar-2013
The claimant prisoner appealed against refusal of review of the use of allegations and evidence of offences not tried against him when deciding as to his release on licence. The material would suggest that he might pose a continuing risk to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199623
On his return to the Young Offenders Institution, the applicant was found with positive indications of contact with drugs, and he was removed from association. He complained that his human rights had been infringed, contending that the ‘right’ in issue was the right to association, being the right to maintain relationships with other prisoners as an aspect of the right to private life under Article 8 and the right to liberty within the confines of the prison.
Held: The decision in issue did not involve a criminal charge or a civil right and Article 6 is not applicable.
Weatherup J
[2004] NIQB 44
Cited – King, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 27-Mar-2012
In each case the prisoners challenged their transfer to cellular confinement or segregation within prison or YOI, saying that the transfers infringed their rights under Article 6, saying that domestic law, either in itself or in conjunction with . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199400
ECHR Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objections dismissed (victim, non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) ; Violation of Art. 5-3 ; Violation of Art. 5-4 ; Violation of Art. 5-5 ; No separate issue under Art. 13 ; No violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected ; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient ; Costs and expenses partial award
The applicant’s detention prior to trial, for a period of two years, had lasted an unreasonably long time.
Held: The European court found a violation of article 5(3). There was also a breach of article 5(4) relating to an application which the applicant had made to the public prosecutor to be released on bail. The prosecutor had transmitted the request to the domestic court, which had failed to deal with it. However the applicant’s detention on remand had been justified. In dealing with the claim under article 41, it noted that the period spent on remand had been deducted from the prison sentence which the applicant was ordered to serve following his conviction; and the court accepted that the deduction of a period of detention from the ultimate sentence removed the need for any further award in respect of non-pecuniary loss arising from a violation of article 5(3).
39359/98, [2004] ECHR 280
European Convention on Human Rights 5(3)
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.
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198282
It was natural justice to allow a discretionary lifer to see the reports which had been prepared for consideration on his application for release on licence. W had been sentenced to life imprisonment for buggery, and was a discretionary life prisoner. The report iindicated that he might still be a risk if released on licence.
Held: He could not make use of the right to make representations if he was not told of the allegations against him. Natural justice required that he be given the information.
Taylor LJ
Gazette 06-May-1992, [1992] QB 740, [1992] 2 WLR 707
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Chief Constable of North Wales Police and Others Ex Parte Thorpe and Another; Regina v Chief Constable for North Wales Police Area and others ex parte AB and CB CA 18-Mar-1998
Public Identification of Pedophiles by Police
AB and CB had been released from prison after serving sentences for sexual assaults on children. They were thought still to be dangerous. They moved about the country to escape identification, and came to be staying on a campsite. The police sought . .
Adopted – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody and Others HL 25-Jun-1993
A mandatory lifer is to be permitted to suggest the period of actual sentence to be served. The Home Secretary must give reasons for refusing a lifer’s release. What fairness requires in any particular case is ‘essentially an intuitive judgment’, . .
Cited – Roberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .
Approved – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department Ex Parte Hickey and Others, Same Ex Parte Bamber; Same Ex Parte Malone (No 2) QBD 29-Nov-1994
The Home Secretary is obliged to disclose new evidence to a defendant before rejecting his application for a reference to Court of Appeal. The Home Secretary’s powers to refer a case back to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) was an integral . .
Cited – Brooke and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v The Parole Board and Another CA 1-Feb-2008
The claimant prisoner complained that the Parole Board was insufficiently independent of government to provide a fair hearing. The court at first instance had found that the relationship between the Parole Board and the sponsoring Department put the . .
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.
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.87525
Complaint as to confinement in segregation unit.
Lord Justice Richards
[2011] EWCA Civ 1538
England and Wales
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.450052
[1842] EngR 577, (1842) 3 QB 188, (1842) 114 ER 479
England and Wales
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.307532
Owen J
[2004] EWHC 2863 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.220534
Change of prisons policy resulting in re-classification of prisoners
Beatson J
[2004] EWHC 2251 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.218723
[2004] EWCA Civ 491
England and Wales
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.196081
The applicant sought judicial review of his cellular confinement after being found to have assaulted a prison guard.
Held: Weatherup J said: ‘the loss of association or loss of privileges as a consequence of a prison adjudication do not constitute a breach of Article 8. First of all there must be a ‘right’ which has a basis in domestic law. In the prison disciplinary context the matters to which the applicant refers are not rights but privileges that are removed for disciplinary reasons. Secondly the right must be ‘civil’ in nature as determined ‘by reference to the substantive contents and effects of the right’ (Konig v Germany [1980] 2EHRR 170 at paragraph 89). Again the matters to which the applicant refers are privileges. Thirdly there must be a ‘determination’ of the civil right in the proceedings. This requires a direct relationship between the dispute and the right. In prison adjudications the impact on privileges is indirectly engaged by the contest. In professional disciplinary proceedings the civil right to practice a profession is directly engaged in the dispute. That the loss of prison privileges may have repercussions on private life or family life would not involve a dispute as to civil rights for the purposes of Article 6. Nor would loss of earnings involve a dispute as to civil rights for the purposes of Article 6. ‘
Weatherup J
[2004] NIQB 24
Prison and Young Offenders Centre Rules (Northern Ireland) 1995, European Convention on Human Rights 8
Cited – King, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 27-Mar-2012
In each case the prisoners challenged their transfer to cellular confinement or segregation within prison or YOI, saying that the transfers infringed their rights under Article 6, saying that domestic law, either in itself or in conjunction with . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195913
Application for leave to appeal on measure of award of compensation for long time spent in prison as a result of miscarriage of justice.
[2004] EWCA Civ 340
England and Wales
Appeal from – Regina (on the Application of O’Brien, Hickey, Hickey) v Independent Assessor QBD 16-Apr-2003
The claimants were to be awarded damages for having been wrongly imprisoned for many years. The respondent was to calculate the award. They complained that he had refused to particularise the award to identify and itemise non-pecuniary loss.
Application for leave – Independent Assessor v O’Brien, Hickey, Hickey CA 29-Jul-2004
The claimants had been imprisoned for many years before their convictions were quashed. They claimed compensation under the Act. The assessor said that there should be deducted from the award the living expenses they would have incurred if they had . .
Leave to appeal to CA – O’Brien and others v Independent Assessor HL 14-Mar-2007
The claimants had been wrongly imprisoned for a murder they did not commit. The assessor had deducted from their compensation a sum to represent the living costs they would have incurred if living freely. They also appealed differences from a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195528
The deceased committed suicide in prison. Her family sought to have added to the verdict the words ‘contributed by neglect’ and complained that the inquest had not provided a full and proper investigation of the death.
Held: The Act needed to be read in its broader meaning to be compliant with the 1998 Act. ‘The word ‘how’ in section 11(5)(b)(ii) of the 1988 Act and rule 36(1)(b) of the 1984 Rules is open to the interpretation that it means not simply ‘by what means’ but rather ‘by what means and in what circumstances . . it should now be given the broader meaning.’ A fresh inquest was appropriate.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond and Lord Carswell
Times 12-Mar-2004, [2004] UKHL 11, Gazette 22-Apr-2004, [2004] Lloyds Rep Med 281, [2004] UKHRR 521, [2004] 2 All ER 487, (2004) 79 BMLR 40, [2004] 1 WLR 796
Coroners Act 1988 8(1)(c) 11(5)(b)(ii), Human Rights Act 1998 3
England and Wales
Appeal from – Sacker v HM Coroner for the County of West Yorkshire CA 27-Feb-2003
The court expressed scepticism about the suitability of a coroner’s inquest, in its present form, as a vehicle for carrying out a state’s obligations under Article 2. Those considerations may accentuate the need for an overdue improvement in the . .
Cited – Regina v North Humberside and Scunthorpe Coroner ex parte Jamieson CA 27-Apr-1994
The deceased prisoner had hanged himself. He had been a known suicide risk, and his brother said that the authorities being so aware, the death resulted from their lack of care. The inquest heard in full the circumstannces leading up to the death, . .
Cited – Middleton, Regina (on the Application of) v Coroner for the Western District of Somerset HL 11-Mar-2004
The deceased had committed suicide in prison. His family felt that the risk should have been known to the prison authorities, and that they had failed to guard against that risk. The coroner had requested an explanatory note from the jury.
Cited – Amin, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Oct-2003
Prisoner’s death – need for full public enquiry
The deceased had been a young Asian prisoner. He was placed in a cell overnight with a prisoner known to be racist, extremely violent and mentally unstable. He was killed. The family sought an inquiry into the death.
Held: There had been a . .
Appealed to – Sacker v HM Coroner for the County of West Yorkshire CA 27-Feb-2003
The court expressed scepticism about the suitability of a coroner’s inquest, in its present form, as a vehicle for carrying out a state’s obligations under Article 2. Those considerations may accentuate the need for an overdue improvement in the . .
Cited – Parkin v HM Coroner for North Lincolnshire and Grimsby District Admn 23-Mar-2005
The family appealed against an open verdict. Her son was found hanged at school. The coroner felt unable to be sure that he had committed suicide. He had been looking forward to a new job as a theatre technician.
Held: There was evidence . .
Cited – JL, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice; Regina (L (A Patient)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 26-Nov-2008
The prisoner was left with serious injury after attempting suicide in prison. He said that there was a human rights duty to hold an investigation into the circumstances leading up to this.
Held: There existed a similar duty to hold an enhanced . .
Cited – Savage v South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (MIND intervening) HL 10-Dec-2008
The deceased had committed suicide on escaping from a mental hospital. The Trust appealed against a refusal to strike out the claim that that they had been negligent in having inadequate security.
Held: The Trust’s appeal failed. The fact that . .
Cited – Lewis, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Coroner for The Mid and North Division of The County of Shropshire and Another CA 21-Dec-2009
The claimant’s son was found hanging in his prison cell. He appealed refusal of a judicial review of the coroner’s decision not to put to the jury a question as to certain possible causative matters. The youth was seen hanging, but the guard called . .
Cited – Smith, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence and Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) SC 30-Jun-2010
The deceased soldier died of heat exhaustion whilst on active service in Iraq. It was said that he was owed a duty under human rights laws, and that any coroner’s inquest should be a fuller one to satisfy the state’s duty under Article 2.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.194439
The applicants were young persons who had been detained during Her Majesty’s Pleasure after convictions for murder. The respondent appealed a finding that he was under a duty to review the tariff with a view to release even before the expiry of the tariff.
Held: The appeals were dismissed. Even though the court fixed the tariff. These applicants fell under transitional arrangements. The respondent had to keep the tariffs under review to allow for the circumstances and welfare of the prisoners as required. It was normally necessary for a criminal sentence to be determined at a public hearing, though exceptional circumstances might show that was unnecessary.
Phillips of Worth Matravers MR, Mantell, Carnwath LJJ
[2004] EWCA Civ 99, Times 18-Feb-2004, Gazette 11-Mar-2004, [2004] QB 1341
Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 82A
England and Wales
Appeal from – Smith, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 31-Jul-2003
. .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State For The Home Department, Ex Parte Venables, Regina v Secretary of State For The Home Department, Ex Parte Thompson HL 12-Jun-1997
A sentence of detention during her majesty’s pleasure when imposed on a youth was not the same as a sentence of life imprisonment, and the Home Secretary was wrong to treat it on the same basis and to make allowance for expressions of public . .
Appeal from – Regina on the Application of Smith v The Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 3-Apr-2003
The case asked what duty the respondent had, in respect of youths sentenced to be detained during Her Majesty’s Pleasure before 30th November 2000, to review their continued detention at regular intervals. A statement said that once a tarriff had . .
Cited – Hammond, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 25-Nov-2004
The defendant had heard that the sentencing judge would set his sentence tarriff without an oral hearing, and would then give his decision in open court. He sought judicial review.
Held: Review was granted. The availability of a right of . .
Appeal from – Smith, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 28-Jul-2005
The applicant had, as a child been subject to detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure, the sentence being imposed before 30 November 2000. She argued that that sentence should be subject to periodic review despite the term had been fixed by the Lord . .
Appeal from – Dudson, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 28-Jul-2005
The defendant had committed a murder when aged 16, and after conviction sentenced to be detailed during Her Majesty’s Pleasure. His tarriff had been set at 18 years, reduced to 16 years after review.
Held: ‘What is at issue is the general . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.193777
The court had to decide the extent to which the Parole Board could rely on hearsay evidence in a case in which a discretionary life prisoner’s licence had been revoked. The evidence was crucial to the issue of risk.
Held: (majority) The Board’s decision which had relied upon the hearsay evidnce was upheld. Kennedy LJ: What the Parole Board must do is to decide in the light of all the relevant material placed before it whether, in the terms of section 28(6)(b) of the 1997 Act, it ‘is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined’.
Lord Justice Clarke Lord Justice Kennedy Lord Justice Wall
[2004] EWCA Civ 80
Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 28(6)(b)
England and Wales
Appeal from – Brooks, Regina (on the Application Of) v Parole Board and Another Admn 11-Jun-2003
. .
Appealed to – Brooks, Regina (on the Application Of) v Parole Board and Another Admn 11-Jun-2003
. .
Cited – Roberts v Parole Board CA 28-Jul-2004
The discretionary life-prisoner faced a parole board. The Secretary of State wished to present evidence, but wanted the witness to be protected. The Parole Board appointed special counsel to hear the evidence on behalf of the prisoner on terms that . .
Cited – Regina (DJ) v Mental Health Review Tribunal; Regina (AN) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (Northern Region) Admn 11-Apr-2005
Each applicant sought judicial review of the refusal of the tribunal to authorise their release from detention under the 1983 Act, saying that the Tribunal had accepted evidence to a lower standard of proof.
Held: Neither the criminal standard . .
Cited – Regina (Broadbent) v Parole Board QBD 27-May-2005
The claimant was a long term prisoner released on licence. He had been stopped and charged with conspiracy to supply a controlled drug. He pleaded not guitly. He challenged revocation of his licence.
Held: A charge alone was not sufficient to . .
Cited – McClean, Re HL 7-Jul-2005
The appellant was serving a life sentence for terrorist offences. He complained that he should have been released under the 1998 Act. It was said he would be a danger to the public if released. On pre-release home leave he was involved in a . .
Cited – AN, Regina (on the Application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (Northern Region) and others CA 21-Dec-2005
The appellant was detained under section 37 of the 1983 Act as a mental patient with a restriction under section 41. He sought his release.
Held: The standard of proof in such applications remained the balance of probabilities, but that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.193448
The prisoner had money removed and kept for him on entry to prison. Upon release he claimed that the money had been held in trust, and should have been invested for some return. He appealed a finding that the money had been held simply as a debt with no duty to invest it.
Held: The removal of the money created a debt and no more. A prisoner retained all rights save any expressly removed. The rules made no other provision, and it was argued therefore that the prisoner retained beneficial ownership. That was the wrong question. The rule required the prisoner to be deprived of possession of the money. There was nothing in the language of the section to disturb other law. Cash and notes are fungibles. The transfer of them from one person to another transferred title at the same time. A debt was created.
Peter Gibson, Chadwick, Keene LJJ
Times 13-Feb-2004, [2004] EWCA Civ 78, Gazette 04-Mar-2004, [2004] 1 WLR 1010
Prison Rules 1999 (1999 No 728) 43(3)
England and Wales
Appeal from – Duggan v Governor of Full Sutton Prison and Another ChD 28-Feb-2003
On reception into prison, the prison took cash from the claimant which was returned on his release. He claimed that it should have been invested.
Held: The credit of the receipt into the books of the prison created only a debt as between the . .
Appealed to – Duggan v Governor of Full Sutton Prison and Another ChD 28-Feb-2003
On reception into prison, the prison took cash from the claimant which was returned on his release. He claimed that it should have been invested.
Held: The credit of the receipt into the books of the prison created only a debt as between the . .
Cited – Regina (Coleman) v Governor of Wayland Prison QBD 3-Apr-2009
The prisoner complained that his mobile phone having been confiscated, the governor had sought its destruction.
Held: It was not open to the governor to destroy the prisoner’s property. The decision in Duggan made the governor’s interpretation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.193474
The prisoner was subject to a long term of imprisonment, and also to a deportation order which was to take effect upon his release. He complained that, because of the latter, he had not been considered for parole, and that this was discriminatiry.
Held: The difference in treatment occurred because of the nationality of the prisoner. Such a decision in respect of French nationals would be discriminatory. It was not for the court to speculate as to the reasons for the policy, but it was discriminatory and unlawful.
McCombe J
Times 05-Feb-2004, [2004] EWHC 78 (Admin)
Criminal Justice Act 1991 31, European Convention on Human Rights 14
England and Wales
Cited – Regina (G) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal; Regina (M) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal Admn 25-Mar-2004
The applicants sought judicial review of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s refusal of leave to appeal. The court had to decide whether such a right survived section 101 of the 2001 Act.
Held: The right to have a judicial review could only be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.192687
[2004] EWHC 13 (Admin)
Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 92
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.192139
A prisoner serving a life sentence challenged the decision of the Prison Service to refuse to admit him to a witness protection unit and contended that the Norfolk Police had failed in their duty to provide appropriate information to the Prison Service.
Held: The decision was quashed. The duty to protect the life of a prisoner against the risk of attacks by fellow prisoners involved different considerations from that owed to persons out in the community and, by inference, from that owed to a potentially suicidal prisoner.
Crane J
[2002] EWHC 1738 (Admin)
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 – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189077
Lord Justice Brooke Sir Martin Nourse Lord Justice Longmore
[2003] EWCA Civ 1739
England and Wales
Appeal from – Davies, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Deputy Coroner for Birmingham and Another Admn 11-Feb-2003
. .
Costs reserved to – 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 . .
Appealed to – Davies, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Deputy Coroner for Birmingham and Another Admn 11-Feb-2003
. .
Reserved from – 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.
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188394
[2003] EWHC 2831 (Admin)
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188325
The governor instituted a rule requiring that prisoners and their legal advisers wishing to exchange documents must first obtain authorisation. The prisoner challenged the rule, and particularly also that if prior authorisation had not been obtained, permission on the day could only been given in exceptional circumstances.
Held: The rule was a response to problems of security, as such it was proportionate and valid, even though the court expressed the wish that the prison should not construe the phrase ‘exceptional circumstances’ too tightly.
Hooper J
Times 30-Jan-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 1480
England and Wales
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.187579
[2003] EWHC 2437 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.187317
The applicants were prisoners subject to disciplinary proceedings. The offences were equivalent to criminal charges in domestic law. They were refused legal assistance, and had additional terms added to their sentences.
Held: The charges engaged the defendants article 6 rights. The need for prison discipline was not a justification for removing such rights. The offences were not purely disciplinary. Though the additional days would not extend the terms served beyond the original periods set down by the courts, the effect was still to extend the actual term to be served. The refusal of legal representation was an infringement of their rights.
40086/98, 39665/98, Times 30-Oct-2003, [2003] ECHR 485
European Convention on Human Rights 6
Human Rights
See also – 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 – Grieves v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Dec-2003
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
The claimant had been dismissed from the Royal Navy after a court martial. He . .
Cited – Cooper v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Dec-2003
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction)
The claimant had been dismissed from the RAF after a court martial. He complained that the tribunal was not independent, and that his trial was unfair.
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: . .
Cited – Haase, Regina (on the Application of) v Independent Adjudicator and Another CA 14-Oct-2008
The appellant complained that as a prisoner he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for refusing to co-operate with drugs tests. He said that he had not been informed that there would be a penalty if he did not comply. He now complained that . .
Cited – King, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 27-Mar-2012
In each case the prisoners challenged their transfer to cellular confinement or segregation within prison or YOI, saying that the transfers infringed their rights under Article 6, saying that domestic law, either in itself or in conjunction with . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.186650
The claimant and her son sought to visit her other son in Leeds Prison. He was suspected of involvement in drugs, and therefore she was subjected to strip searches. There was no statutory support for the search. The son’s penis had been touched which was a battery.
Held: The policy considerations which limit the heads of recoverable damage in negligence do not apply equally to torts of intention. Wilkinson v Downton does not provide a remedy for distress not amounting to recognized psychiatric injury. The prison officers acted in good faith, and there had been no more than ‘sloppiness’ in their failures to comply with the rules. The House could not extend the law to create a new tort of invasion of privacy to provide for damages for distress alone. The existence of a Convention right cannot call for instant manufacture of a corresponding common law right where none exists.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton, Lord Scott of Foscote
[2003] UKHL 53, Times 20-Oct-2003, [2003] 3 WLR 1137, 2004] 2 AC 406
Prisons Act 1952 47(1), European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales
Cited – Letang v Cooper CA 15-Jun-1964
The plaintiff, injured in an accident, pleaded trespass to the person, which was not a breach of duty within the proviso to the section, in order to achieve the advantages of a six-year limitation period.
Held: Trespass is strictly speaking . .
Cited – Collins v Wilcock QBD 1984
The defendant appealed against her conviction for assaulting a police constable in the execution of his duty. He had sought to caution her with regard to activity as a prostitute. The 1959 Act gave no power to detain, but he took hold of her. She . .
Mentioned – Wilson v Pringle CA 26-Mar-1986
Two boys played in a school yard. D said he had pulled a bag from the other’s shoulder as an ordinary act of horseplay. The plaintiff said it was a battery.
Held: The defendant’s appeal against summary judgment was allowed. A claim of trespass . .
Distinguished – Wilkinson v Downton 8-May-1997
Thomas Wilkinson, the landlord of a public house, went off by train, leaving his wife Lavinia behind the bar. A customer of the pub, Downton played a practical joke on her. He told her, falsely, that her husband had been involved in an accident and . .
Cited – Malone v Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis (No 2) ChD 28-Feb-1979
The court considered the lawfulness of telephone tapping. The issue arose following a trial in which the prosecution had admitted the interception of the plaintiff’s telephone conversations under a warrant issued by the Secretary of State. The . .
Cited – Khorasandjian v Bush CA 16-Feb-1993
The plaintiff was an eighteen year old girl who had had a friendship with the defendant, aged 28. The friendship broke down and the plaintiff said she would have no more to do with him, but the defendant did not accept this. There were many . .
Mentioned – Khan v The United Kingdom ECHR 12-May-2000
Evidence was acknowledged to have been obtained unlawfully and in breach of another article of the Convention. The police had installed covert listening devices on private property without the knowledge or consent of the owner. UK national law did . .
Cited – Hunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd HL 25-Apr-1997
The claimant, in a representative action complained that the works involved in the erection of the Canary Wharf tower constituted a nuisance in that the works created substantial clouds of dust and the building blocked her TV signals, so as to limit . .
Cited – Regina v Khan (Sultan) HL 2-Jul-1996
The police had obtained the evidence against the defendant by fixing a covert listening device at an apartment visited by the defendant, and by recording his conversations there. The defendant appealed, saying that the court should have regard to . .
Cited – Kaye v Robertson CA 16-Mar-1990
A newspaper reporter and photographer invaded the (famouse) plaintiff’s hospital bedroom, purported to interview him and took photographs.
Held: The law of trespass provided no remedy because the plaintiff was not owner or occupier of the room . .
Cited – Earl Spencer v United Kingdom ECHR 1998
The English law of confidence provided an adequate remedy to restrain the publication of private information about the applicants’ marriage and medical condition and photographs taken with a telephoto lens. These developments showed that the basic . .
Cited – Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers plc CA 14-Oct-2002
The newspaper appealed against a finding that it had infringed the claimant’s privacy by publishing a photograph of her leaving a drug addiction clinic.
Held: The claimant had courted publicity, and denied an involvement in drugs. The defence . .
Cited – Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others HL 18-Feb-1993
Local Council may not Sue in Defamation
Local Authorities must be open to criticism as political and administrative bodies, and so cannot be allowed to sue in defamation. Such a right would operate as ‘a chill factor’ on free speech. Freedom of speech was the underlying value which . .
Cited – Peck v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-Jan-2003
peck_ukECHR2003
The claimant had been filmed by CCTV. He had, after attempting suicide, left home with a knife, been arrested by the police and disarmed, but then sent home without charge. The CCTV film was used on several occasions to advertise the effectiveness . .
Cited – Wong v Parkside Health NHS Trust and Another CA 16-Nov-2001
The claimant had sued her former employer for post-traumatic stress resulting from alleged harassment at her place of work. The claimant appealed against an order refusing damages. The court had held that outside the 1997 Act which was not in force . .
Cited – Victorian Railway Commissioners v Coultas PC 21-Jan-1888
(Victoria) The appellant’s gatekeeper had negligently invited the plaintiffs to cross a railway line as a train approached. There was no collision, but the plaintiff sought damages for physical and mental injuries from shock.
Held: The . .
Cited – Dulieu v White and Sons KBD 1901
A pregnant barmaid suffered nervous shock causing her to give premature birth as a result of the tortfeasor’s horse van bursting into her bar at the Bonner Arms in Bethnal Green from the roadway. The defendant pleaded that the damages claimed were . .
Cited – Janvier v Sweeney 1919
During the First World War Mlle Janvier lived as a paid companion in a house in Mayfair and corresponded with her German lover who was interned as an enemy alien on the Isle of Man. Sweeney was a private detective who wanted secretly to obtain some . .
Cited – Valasinas v Lithuania ECHR 24-Jul-2001
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 3 with regard to body search; No violation of Art. 3 with regard to other complaints; Violation of Art. 8; No violation of Art. 34; Non-pecuniary . .
Cited – Iwanczuk v Poland ECHR 15-Nov-2001
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 3; Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses . .
Cited – Lorse and Others v The Netherlands ECHR 4-Feb-2003
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 3 with regard to the first applicant ; No violation of Art. 3 with regard to the other applicants ; No violation of Art. 8 ; No violation of Art. 13 . .
Cited – Hicks v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police 1992
. .
Appeal from – The Home Office v Wainwright and Wainwright CA 20-Dec-2001
The claimants were awarded damages, following the way they were searched on seeking to enter prison on a visit. The Home Office appealed. They were asked to sign a consent form, but only after the search was nearly complete. They were told the . .
Cited – AB and others v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust QBD 26-Mar-2004
Representative claims were made against the respondents, hospitals, pathologists etc with regard to the removal of organs from deceased children without the informed consent of the parents. They claimed under the tort of wrongful interference.
Cited – Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd (MGN) (No 1) HL 6-May-2004
The claimant appealed against the denial of her claim that the defendant had infringed her right to respect for her private life. She was a model who had proclaimed publicly that she did not take drugs, but the defendant had published a story . .
Cited – Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd CA 5-Nov-2004
The claimant appealed against refusal of an order restraining publication by the respondent of an article about her. She said that it was based upon an email falsely attributed to her.
Held: ‘in an action for defamation a court will not impose . .
Cited – Langley and others v Liverpool City Council and others CA 11-Oct-2005
Families had challenged the removal of their children into the care of foster parents by the respondents. The family father, who was blind, had taken to driving. The respondents appealed findings that they had acted unlawfully and in breach of the . .
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 – KD v Chief Constable of Hampshire QBD 23-Nov-2005
The claimant’s daughter had made a complaint of rape. She alleged that she was sexually harassed by the investigating police officer, and sought damages also from the defendant, his employer. The officer denied that anything improper or . .
At House of Lords – Wainwright v The United Kingdom ECHR 26-Sep-2006
The claimants complained of having been strip searched when visiting a relative at Leeds Prison.
Held: The complaint succeeded: ‘the searches were proportionate to that legitimate aim in the manner in which they were carried out. Where . .
Cited – Hertfordshire Police v Van Colle; Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex Police HL 30-Jul-2008
Police Obligations to Witnesses is Limited
A prosecution witness was murdered by the accused shortly before his trial. The parents of the deceased alleged that the failure of the police to protect their son was a breach of article 2.
Held: The House was asked ‘If the police are alerted . .
Cited – Google Inc v Vidal-Hall and Others CA 27-Mar-2015
Damages for breach of Data Protection
The claimants sought damages alleging that Google had, without their consent, collected personal data about them, which was resold to advertisers. They used the Safari Internet browser on Apple products. The tracking and collation of the claimants’ . .
Cited – OPO v MLA and Another QBD 18-Jul-2014
A boy now sought an interim injunction to restrain his father, the defendant classical musician, from publishing his autobiography which mentioned him. The book would say that the father had suffered sexual abuse as a child at school.
Held: . .
Cited – OPO v MLA and Another CA 9-Oct-2014
The claimant child sought to prevent publication by his father of an autobiography which, he said, would be likely to cause him psychological harm. The father was well known classical musician who said that he had himself suffered sexual abuse as a . .
Cited – Rhodes v OPO and Another SC 20-May-2015
The mother sought to prevent a father from publishing a book about her child’s life. It was to contain passages she said may cause psychological harm to the 12 year old son. Mother and son lived in the USA and the family court here had no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.186776
The defendant had been sentenced for offences of violence, but an additional period was imposed to protect the public. He had been refused leave for reconsideration of that part of his sentence after he completed the normal segment of his sentence. He wanted a consideration which would parallel the new won rights of review for discretionary lifers.
Held: His appeal was dismissed. The structure of the Act did not envisage such a review. Any relief would have to be found in Human Rights law. The primary target of article 5(4), read with article 5(1), is deprivation of liberty which is arbitrary, or directed or controlled by the executive. The sentence was imposed by the judge, and should be treated as any other sentence. The parallel with discretionary lifers failed. Where the prisoner has been lawfully detained within the meaning of article 5(1)(a) following the imposition of a determinate sentence after his conviction by a competent court, the review which article 5(4) requires is incorporated in the original sentence passed by the sentencing court.
Lord Bingham described the core rights which Article 5 is designed to protect in the following terms: ‘Its primary target is deprivation of liberty which is arbitrary or directed or controlled by the executive.’
Lord Hope considered the cases of E v Norway and Van Droogenbroeck, saying: ‘The important point which emerges from these two decisions for present purposes is that a distinction is drawn between detention for a period whose length is embodied in the sentence of the court on the one hand and the transfer of decisions about the prisoner’s release or re-detention to the executive. The first requirement that must be satisfied is that according to article 5(1) the detention must be ‘lawful’. That is to say, it must be in accordance with domestic law and not arbitrary. The review under article 5(4) must then be wide enough to bear on the conditions which are essential for a determination of this issue. Where the decision about the length of the period of detention is made by a court at the close of judicial proceedings, the requirements of article 5(1) are satisfied and the supervision required by article 5(4) is incorporated in the decision itself. That is the principle which was established in De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp. But where the responsibility for decisions about the length of the period of detention is passed by the court to the executive, the lawfulness of the detention requires a process which enables the basis for it to be reviewed judicially at reasonable intervals. This is because there is a risk that the link between continued detention and the original justification for it will be lost as conditions change with the passage of time. If this happens there is a risk that decisions which are taken by the executive will be arbitrary. That risk is absent where the length of the period of detention is fixed as part of its original decision by the court.’
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton, Lord Scott of Foscote
[2004] 1 AC 1, [2003] UKHL 42, Times 01-Aug-2003, [2003] 3 WLR 736, [2003] UKHRR 1035, [2003] 4 All ER 429, [2003] HRLR 37
European Convention on Human Rights 5.4, Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 80(2)(b)
England and Wales
Cited – De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v Belgium ECHR 18-Jun-1971
ECHR Judgment (Just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient 2832/66; 2835/66; 2899/66
Cited – Winterwerp v The Netherlands ECHR 24-Oct-1979
A Dutch national detained in hospital complained that his detention had divested him of his capacity to administer his property, and thus there had been determination of his civil rights and obligations without the guarantee of a judicial procedure. . .
Cited – Regina v Governor of Brockhill Prison ex parte Evans; Regina v Governor of Onley Young Offender Institution Rugby ex parte Paul Reid CACD 15-Nov-1996
Time which had been spent in custody by the defendant awaiting trial and otherwise, was to be allowed to be set off against the sentence to be served, but once only and against all concurrent sentences. . .
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 – Wynne v United Kingdom ECHR 18-Jul-1994
A Discretionary lifer is not entitled to a review by a court of his continued detention. His article five rights were not breached. Where a national court imposed a fixed sentence of imprisonment, the supervision required by article 5.4 was . .
Cited – McLeod v The United Kingdom ECHR 23-Sep-1998
A Police Officer assisting in recovery of items ordered to be returned in matrimonial proceedings acted in excess of his powers and trespassed in entering house where there was no immediate threat of breach of the peace, and no sight of disorder. An . .
Cited – Torbet v H M Advocate HCJ 1999
The appellant had offended while on licence from a life sentence for murder. When sentencing the trial judge took into account the fact that he posed a moderate risk of future violence to women with whom he had had an intimate relationship. The . .
Cited – Regina v Chapman CACD 22-Jul-1999
A discretionary life sentence intended to protect the public could now only be imposed after establishing compliance with the Act in that the sentence was so serious as to deserve a very long sentence, and for an unforeseeable time into the future, . .
Cited – Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Oct-1990
The applicants, discretionary life prisoners, complained of a violation on the ground that they were not able to have the continued lawfulness of their detention decided by a court at reasonable intervals throughout their imprisonment.
Held: A . .
Cited – Hussain v The United Kingdom ECHR 21-Feb-1996
The determination of a life sentence by the Home Secretary without recourse to a court was unlawful. There had been a violation of article 5(4) because the applicant who had been detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure was unable, after the expiry of his . .
Cited – Van Droogenbroeck v Belgium ECHR 24-Jun-1982
The applicant was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for theft. He had a previous convictions and was thought to have a persistent tendency to crime, and was placed at the government’s disposal for 10 years on that ground. This was subject to . .
Cited – E v Norway ECHR 29-Aug-1990
The applicant suffered serious brain damage and was an untreatable psychopath. He was convicted of numerous violent offences and sentenced to a period of imprisonment. He was also sentenced to preventive detention under the Norwegian Penal Code, as . .
Cited – Perez v France ECHR 1995
The applicant complained that, having been convicted in Andorra, no provision availed for review of his detention in France where he served his sentence.
Held: There was no violation ‘The review required by article 5(4) is incorporated in the . .
Cited – Silva Rocha v Portugal ECHR 15-Nov-1996
The applicant was tried on charges of aggravated homicide and others, but the court found him mentally disturbed, preventing criminal responsibility. He was dangerous it and ordered him to be detained. This security measure remained for a minimum . .
Cited – Mansell v United Kingdom ECHR 2-Jul-1997
The judge imposed a longer than commensurate sentence in an indecent assault case to protect the public. The applicant complained that he should have been entitled to a review of the lawfulness of his detention as he was in the same position as a . .
Cited – Regina v King CACD 1973
Two men carried out offences, including going equipped for stealing, burglary, possessing an imitation pistol, and carrying offensive weapons, which included an unloaded revolver for which they had no ammunition. They pleaded guilty to the charges . .
Cited – Regina v Sargeant CACD 1974
The judge had imposed a longer sentence for a crime of violence in order to protect the public against the violent propensities of the accused.
Held: Lawton LJ said: ‘What ought the proper penalty to be? We have thought it necessary not only . .
Appeal from – 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 . .
Cited – Regina (on the Application of Cawser) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 5-Nov-2003
The claimant was serving a prison sentence for serious sexual offences. He would not be released until he had completed a sex offenders programme, but one was not made available, delaying his release.
Held: ‘The Secretary of State is not under . .
Cited – Regina (Sim) v Parole Board CA 18-Dec-2003
The prisoner had been sentenced to an extended term of five years imprisonment for indecent assault. He had been released, and then recalled for alleged breaches of his licence. The respondent appealed findings that such a recall was subject to . .
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 . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Hindawi and Headley CA 13-Oct-2004
The applicant was a foreign national serving a long-term prison sentence. He complained that UK nationals would have had their case referred to the parole board before his.
Held: The right to be referred to the parole board was a statutory . .
Cited – McClean, Re HL 7-Jul-2005
The appellant was serving a life sentence for terrorist offences. He complained that he should have been released under the 1998 Act. It was said he would be a danger to the public if released. On pre-release home leave he was involved in a . .
Cited – Black, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice HL 21-Jan-2009
The appellant complained that the system for considering the release of a life prisoner did not comply with the Convention when the decision was made by the Secretary of State and not by the Parole Board, or the court. The Board had recommended his . .
Cited – Whiston, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 25-Oct-2012
The claimant was a prisoner released on a home detention licence, but his licence had been revoked. He now said that the way it had been revoked, without the respondent’s decision being subject to confirmation by the Parole Board, nor to other . .
Cited – Whiston, Regina (on The Application of) SC 2-Jul-2014
The claimant, having been released from prison on licence, objected to the procedure whereby his licence was revoked with no means for him to challenge that decision.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Article 5(4) did not apply to the particular . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.185218
[2003] EWHC 597 (Admin)
Crime (Sentencing) Act 1997 28
England and Wales
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.185021
[2018] EWHC 2820 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.628040
[2018] EWCA Crim 1603, [2018] 4 WLR 127
England and Wales
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.628170
Application by a sentenced prisoner, for a declaration that the search of his cell by prison officers and in particular the examination of legal correspondence when he was not present was unlawful.
[2003] NIQB 23
See Also – Murdock, Re an Application for Judicial Review NIQB 24 QBNI 31-Mar-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.184108
The court rejected a challenge to the Home Secretary’s decision to substitute a period of 18 months for the 9 months recommended by the Parole Board to be passed in open conditions before the prisoner’s next review. ‘[The right not to be detained arbitrarily] can be breached as a matter of law if the Home Secretary does not take proper steps to offer available offending behaviour courses designed to reduce risk and assess the level to which risk has been reduced because, absent such a duty, post-tariff detention could be reduced to ‘warehousing’ and the right to a review could become hollow. . . The claimant submits that the existence of a duty grounded in Article 5 allows a prisoner in an appropriate case to secure a remedial order from a court to prevent a breach of Article 5(1).’ In determining whether the interval between the review dates complied with article 5(4) on the facts of a particular case:- ‘the court asks itself whether the interval was reasonable. The answer to this question is a matter for the court. The court does not, therefore, apply the Wednesbury test and ask whether the interval was not one which a reasonable decision-maker could determine. In considering the question of reasonableness, the court would give appropriate weight to the views both of the Home Secretary and of the Parole Board.’
Lord Justice Clarke Lord Justice Brooke Lady Justice Arden
[2003] EWCA Civ 732, [2003] Prison Law Reports 290
European Convention on Human Rights 5.1
England and Wales
Appeal from – Spence, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Office Admn 19-Dec-2002
. .
Cited – Regina (on the Application of Cawser) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 5-Nov-2003
The claimant was serving a prison sentence for serious sexual offences. He would not be released until he had completed a sex offenders programme, but one was not made available, delaying his release.
Held: ‘The Secretary of State is not under . .
Appealed to – Spence, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Office Admn 19-Dec-2002
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.183066
The defendant appealed against her conviction saying that the Sheriff’s admission of certain evidence was a breach of her human rights. A telephone call from prison had been intercepted (routinely), from which the police had anticipated the importation of drugs to the prison by the defendant.
Held: The interception was allowed under the 1989 Act, and the evidence properly admitted: ‘The telephone call was made by the prisoner from within the prison. It was monitored within the prison by an officer there. The prisoner had notice that any telephone call which he made from the prison telephone might be monitored, listened to and even tape recorded. There was no prohibition against his advising the recipient of his call of this fact.’
Lord Justice Clerk And Lord Cameron Of Lochbroom And Lord Kirkwood
[2003] ScotHC 5
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 4(3)(b), European Convention on Human Rights 8, Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989, Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Communication by Telephone)(Scotland) (No.2) Direction 1999
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.181771
The claimants were to be awarded damages for having been wrongly imprisoned for many years. The respondent was to calculate the award. They complained that he had refused to particularise the award to identify and itemise non-pecuniary loss.
Held: The failure was inconsistent with the duty of transparency. Without such details, the applicants would have insufficient information to judge whether an appeal would be appropriate. The Independent Assessor was to follow the general principles for civil awards of damages, but it could not be seen whether this had been done. If later proceedings followed a judge in such proceedings would be unable to see what award had already been made.
The Honourable Mr Justice Maurice Kay
[2003] EWHC 855 (Admin), Times 05-May-2003, Gazette 03-Jul-2003
England and Wales
Cited – Thompson v Commissioner of Police of Metropolis; Hsu v Same CA 20-Feb-1997
CS Damages of 200,000 pounds by way of exemplary damages had been awarded against the police for unlawful arrest and assault.
Held: The court gave a guideline maximum pounds 50,000 award against police for . .
Cited – O’Brien v Chief Constable of the South Wales Police CA 23-Jul-2003
The claimant sought damages for malicious prosecution, and sought to adduce similar fact evidence. The defendant appealed an order admitting the evidence.
Held: Comparisons between admission of similar fact evidence in civil and criminal . .
Appeal from – Independent Assessor v O’Brien, Hickey, Hickey CA 29-Jul-2004
The claimants had been imprisoned for many years before their convictions were quashed. They claimed compensation under the Act. The assessor said that there should be deducted from the award the living expenses they would have incurred if they had . .
Appeal from – Hickey and others v Independent Assessor CA 25-Feb-2004
Application for leave to appeal on measure of award of compensation for long time spent in prison as a result of miscarriage of justice. . .
At first instance – O’Brien and others v Independent Assessor HL 14-Mar-2007
The claimants had been wrongly imprisoned for a murder they did not commit. The assessor had deducted from their compensation a sum to represent the living costs they would have incurred if living freely. They also appealed differences from a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.181387
The defendant had been convicted of a serious offence involving violece or sex, and been made subject to a extended sentence. He had been released on licence but recalled, and now challenged the system under which it had been decided that he should serve the balance of the first sentence.
Held: The system of extended sentences went beyond sentencing for the actual offence asking also whether there was a risk of re-offending. The parole board exercised an important public function, and made decisions with serious consequences to individuals. That this might require an assessment of the risk he posed made the decisions even more requiring of fairness. Where however further information came to light which suggested that there was a risk, then it was proper to recall a prisoner. There was no severance of the causal link with the original sentence, and the factor which caused the re-assessment need not be an offence of the same type as that whch gave rise to the sentence. A parole board could receive hearsay evidence.
Elias J spoke of the purpose of extended sentences: ”In such cases the object of the sentence is not to subject the prisoner to detention for the extended licence period, and indeed frequently when such sentences are imposed there would be no power at that stage to detain the prisoner in custody for that period. The aim of the sentence is to manage the risk in the community rather than in prison, albeit that it is recognised that it may be necessary to resort to further detention if that aim fails. The offender is not on licence as an alternative to prison; rather he is on licence as an alternative to liberty . . Once the prison sentence imposed by the court has been served, once cannot say that the sentencing court had it in mind that the offender should be detained unless it was shown that he was no longer a danger. The presumption implicit in the sentence passed is that during the extension period the offender need not be in custody.’ and ‘To have a presumption, therefore, that detention is justified after recall during the extension period is contrary to article 5. No court has decided, prior to matter being dealt with by the Parole Board, that detention is necessary during that period. The executive will be definition have taken that view, since it has decided to recall the offender, but that is not enough for compliance with article 5. As Elias J said, at para 54, the board should not be required to start from the premise that the executive’s assessment was correct. It is something about which the Parole Board itself should be satisfied.’
Elias J
Times 21-Feb-2003, Gazette 03-Apr-2003, [2003] EWHC 152 (Admin), [2003] 2 WLR 1374, [2004] QB 1288
European Convention on Human Rights 5, Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentences) Act 2000 85
Appeal from – Regina (Sim) v Parole Board CA 18-Dec-2003
The prisoner had been sentenced to an extended term of five years imprisonment for indecent assault. He had been released, and then recalled for alleged breaches of his licence. The respondent appealed findings that such a recall was subject to . .
Cited – O v Crown Court at Harrow HL 26-Jul-2006
The claimant said that his continued detention after the custody time limits had expired was an infringement of his human rights. He faced continued detention having been refused bail because of his arrest on a grave charge, having a previous . .
Appeal from – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Sim and The Parole Board CA 19-Dec-2003
The prisoner was subject to an extended sentence, and had been recalled to prison. He now complained that the recall procedure had infringed his human rights. . .
Cited – Chater, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another Admn 2-Aug-2010
The claimant sought judicial review of his treatment after recall to prison from licence. He had a history of the sexual abuse of children. A police surveillance report had been rejected by the Parole Board, but they had nevertheless continued his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.179543
Vexatious litigant application
[2003] EWHC 18 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.179099
The League challenged the respondent’s statement in the Prisons’ Handbook that children held in young offender institutions were not subject to the protection of the 1989 Act.
Held: Neither the Prison Act and Rules excluded the Prison authorities from the list of those required to co-operate with local authorities in the exercise of their duties under the 1989 Act. The authorities duties continued notwithstanding the imprisonment, and therefore the Act continued to apply, in direct contradiction of the Prisons’ Handbook, but indirectly. Whether the duties were being complied with required to be assessed in the context of the treatment of a particular child. Munby J said: ‘human rights law imposes on the Prison Service enforceable obligations, that is, obligations enforceable by or on behalf of children in YOIs: (i) to have regard to the ‘welfare’ principle encapsulated in the UN Convention and the European Charter; and (ii) to take effective steps to protect children in YOIs from any ill-treatment, whether at the hands of Prison Service staff or of other inmates, of the type which engages either Arts 3 or 8 of the European Convention. ‘
Munby J
Times 05-Dec-2002, Gazette 16-Jan-2003, Gazette 23-Jan-2003, [2002] EWHC 2497 (Admin), [2003] 1 FLR 484
Children Act 1989 17 47, Prison Act 1952, Young Offender Institution Rules 2000 (2000 SI 3371), European Convention on Human Rights 8
Cited – Regina v Somerset County Council, ARC Southern Limited ex parte Richard Dixon Admn 18-Apr-1997
. .
Cited – In Re C (A Minor) (Medical Treatment: Court’s Jurisdiction); Re C (Detention: Medical Treatment) FD 21-Mar-1997
A children’s clinic is not secure accommodation, and the court may make orders for his or her treatment whilst in the clinic. The court discussed whether the state had power if necessary to detain a child using its parens patriae powers to give . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte World Development Movement Ltd QBD 1995
A British consortium looked for assistance in providing a hydro-electric project on the Pergau river. One interested government department advised that it was not economical and an abuse of the overseas aid programme, but the respondent decided to . .
Cited – Payne v Payne; P v P CA 13-Feb-2001
No presumption for Mother on Relocation
The mother applied for leave to return to New Zealand taking with the parties’ daughter aged four. The father opposed the move, saying that allowing the move would infringe his and the child’s right to family life. He had been refused residence.
Cited – Spink, Regina (on the Application Of) v Wandsworth Borough Council Admn 20-Oct-2004
Parents requested the local authority to make provision for their severely disabled children. The local authority wished when deciding whether to provide adaptations of the house to make allowance for the parents’ financial resources.
Held: . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v SP CA 21-Dec-2004
The applcant, a girl aged 17 was in a young offender institution. She complained that she had been removed to segregation without first giving her chance to be heard. The respondent argued that there were sufficient post decision safeguards to . .
Cited – D, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 28-Apr-2005
D was undergoing trial for offences and was held in prison. He self-harmed repeatedly, and was recorded to require extra vigilance. He attempted to hang himself. Prison staff saved his life, but he was left paraplegic, and was then detained under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178347
[2012] EWCA Civ 1200
England and Wales
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.464262
The defendant had heard that the sentencing judge would set his sentence tarriff without an oral hearing, and would then give his decision in open court. He sought judicial review.
Held: Review was granted. The availability of a right of appeal was not of itself sufficient to justify a declaration of incompatibility for a section whose procedure did not respect the applicant’s human rights. Paragraph 11 might prevent a judge from holding a hearing where he thought one was necessary to satisfy the applicant’s rights to a fair trial, and must be read to be subject to a condition permitting a discretion to the judge to hold an oral hearing. A judge might occasionally exercise a discretion to hold an oral hearing.
Thomas LJ, Richards J, Fulford J
[2004] EWHC 2753 (Admin), Times 06-Dec-2004, [2005] 4 All ER 1127
Human Rights Act 1998 3(1), Criminal Justice Act 2003 Sch 22 p11
England and Wales
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 – Easterbrook v The United Kingdom ECHR 12-Jun-2003
The prisoner was convicted of an armed robbery in which a policeman had been shot, and had been sentenced to life imprisonment. The judge set no tariff himself. The tariff was set by the Home Secretary, but only after some time. The discretionary . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex parte Anderson HL 25-Nov-2002
The appellant had been convicted of double murder. The judge imposed a mandatory life sentence with a minimum recommended term. The Home Secretary had later increased the minimum term under the 1997 Act. The appellant challenged that increase.
Cited – Regina v A (Complainant’s Sexual History) (No 2) HL 17-May-2001
The fact of previous consensual sex between complainant and defendant could be relevant in a trial of rape, and a refusal to allow such evidence could amount to a denial of a fair trial to a defendant. Accordingly, where the evidence was so relevant . .
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 – 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 – Goc v Turkey ECHR 9-Nov-2000
The applicant had claimed compensation for unlawful detention and mistreatment during that detention; although the proceedings were civil in nature, they were governed by the code of criminal procedure. The applicant was not given an oral hearing . .
Cited – Jasper v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Feb-2000
Grand Chamber – The defendants had been convicted after the prosecution had withheld evidence from them and from the judge under public interest immunity certificates. They complained that they had not had fair trials.
Held: The right was . .
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 – Regina (Smith) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; and similar CA 11-Feb-2004
The applicants were young persons who had been detained during Her Majesty’s Pleasure after convictions for murder. The respondent appealed a finding that he was under a duty to review the tariff with a view to release even before the expiry of the . .
Cited – Tangney v The Governor of HMP Elmley and Another CA 29-Jul-2005
The claimant was a serving a life sentence. During prison disciplinary proceedings he was refused legal and other assistance, and an outside tribunal on the basis that since any finding would not lead to any loss of remission or extra time, his . .
Appeal from – Hammond, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 1-Dec-2005
The claimants had been convicted of murder, but their tariffs had not yet been set when the 2003 Act came into effect. They said that the procedure under which their sentence tarriffs were set were not compliant with their human rights in that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.219931
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 resulted in the extension of the respective prison sentences. The rules gave the governor discretion to allow representation, but no duty. The Convention required a defendant to be allowed legal representation in any criminal proceedings. Case law allowed exclusion of representation in adjudication proceedings, but these proceedings required representation. The procedure did infringe the prisoners’ human rights.
J-P Costa, P and JJ W. Fuhrmann, L. Loucaides, Sir Nicolas Bratza, H. S. Greve, K. Traja and M. Ugrekhelidze Section Registrar S. Dolle
Times 30-Jul-2002, 39665/98, 40086/98, [2002] ECHR 590, [2003] ECHR 485, (2002) 35 EHRR 691, (2003) 39 EHRR 1, (2002) 35 EHRR 28, [2002] ECHR 595
European Convention on Human Rights 6(3)
Human Rights
Cited – Regina v Home Secretary, Ex parte Tarrant and Others 1985
An application for an oral hearing by the prisoner had been made on a special basis. The court set out six considerations of the conditions under which a prisoner facing internal disciplinary proceedings should be given access to legal . .
Distinguished – West, Regina (on the Application of) v Parole Board CA 13-Nov-2002
The prisoner had been released on licence, but then recalled and re-arrested it being alleged that he was in breach of his conditions. His solicitors sought to represent him at the hearing of the parole board which considered whether to recommend . .
Cited – Regina on the Application of Uttley v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 30-Jul-2003
Licence conditions imposed at the time of sentence would restrict the defendant after he had served his sentence and been released, and so operated as a heavier penalty, and section 33(1) was incompatible with the defendant’s Art 7.1 rights.
Cited – Napier v Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 29-Apr-2004
The claimant, whilst a prisoner. had been found guilty in disciplinary proceedings, and sentenced to additional days. He was not allowed representation at the hearing. The respondent argued that, the penalty having later been quashed, the hearing . .
See also – Ezeh and Connors v The United Kingdom ECHR 9-Oct-2003
The applicants were prisoners subject to disciplinary proceedings. The offences were equivalent to criminal charges in domestic law. They were refused legal assistance, and had additional terms added to their sentences.
Held: The charges . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Al-Hasan, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Feb-2005
Prisoners were disciplined after refusing to be squat searched, saying that the procedure was humiliating and that there were no reasonable grounds to suspect them of any offence against prison discipline. The officer who had been involved in . .
Cited – Tangney v The Governor of HMP Elmley and Another CA 29-Jul-2005
The claimant was a serving a life sentence. During prison disciplinary proceedings he was refused legal and other assistance, and an outside tribunal on the basis that since any finding would not lead to any loss of remission or extra time, his . .
Cited – Haase, Regina (on the Application of) v Independent Adjudicator and Another CA 14-Oct-2008
The appellant complained that as a prisoner he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for refusing to co-operate with drugs tests. He said that he had not been informed that there would be a penalty if he did not comply. He now complained that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174391
The claimant was a prisoner. He became entitled to be considered for release on parole, but was not released because the Parole Board had not made a decision.
Held: The system for consideration of the release of discretionary and life prisoners infringed the human rights of such prisoners, insofar as the consideration of their release delayed the release. The lack of resources was insufficient as an excuse. Delay was part of the board’s scheme for consideration of life sentence prisoners. The hearing always took place after the end of the tariff period: cases were heard at the end of the next quarter.
Article 5(4) requires a review by the Board of whether the prisoner should continue to be detained once the tariff period has expired, and therefore requires a hearing at such a time that, whenever possible, those no longer considered dangerous can be released on or very shortly after the expiry date. ‘Article 5(1) is not relevant because the justification for the detention of a prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment (whether discretionary or automatic or mandatory) is that sentence and not the fixing of the tariff period.’ Although the required causal connection between the conviction and the deprivation of liberty might eventually come to be broken so as to give rise to a breach of Article 5(1), that would be so only very exceptionally and ‘mere delay in Article 5(4) proceedings, even after the tariff expiry date, would not . . break the causal link.’
Lord Woolf, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Simon Brown and Lord Justice Buxton
Times 31-May-2002, Gazette 04-Jul-2002, [2002] 1 WLR 3284, [2002] EWCA Civ 770, [2002] ACD 66, [2002] 4 All ER 515, [2002] HRLR 36
European Convention on Human Rights 5.1
England and Wales
Cited – Regina (on the Application of Cawser) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 5-Nov-2003
The claimant was serving a prison sentence for serious sexual offences. He would not be released until he had completed a sex offenders programme, but one was not made available, delaying his release.
Held: ‘The Secretary of State is not under . .
Distinguished – P, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 11-Dec-2003
The applicant was a discretionary life prisoner compulsorily detained in a mental hospital. His tariff had now expired. If not detained under the 1983 Act he would now be entitled to a review. He argued that there should be a joint hearing.
Cited – Hirst v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 6-Jul-2006
The prisoner had been released on licence but then recalled. He complained that the procedure infringed his human rights. He had been convicted of manslaughter, and was seen to be a long term danger. The court awarded him compensation saying that . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Justice v Walker; Same v James CA 1-Feb-2008
The claimant had been sentenced to a short period of imprisonment but with an indeterminate term until he demonstrated that it was no longer necessary for the protection of the public. He complained that the term having expired, no opportunity had . .
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 – 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 . .
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.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172284
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings
37471/97, [2002] ECHR 481
European Convention on Huma Rights 8
Human Rights
See Also – William Faulkner v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-Mar-2011
A single letter had not been sent on from a prisoner to the Scottish Minister of State. A violation of article 8 was found. The interference was not ‘in accordance with the law’ nor ‘necessary in a democratic society’ for any reason permitted by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172151
A prisoner had been killed in his cell by a cell-mate known to be unstable and racist. His family sought to be involved in the inquiry into the death within the prison system. A second prisoner hanged himself in his cell. His family alleged that he should have been kept on suicide watch. The coroner had not left the issue of neglect to the jury, but the jury had passed a note to him to say they wished to find neglect by the Prison Service. The family asked the coroner to append the note to his verdict. He refused. In each case the family challenged the decision, and the Home Secretary now appealed the resulting decisions.
Held: Though no explicit duty to investigate a death existed, under Human Rights law such a duty had developed. The court had to consider how such a duty applied in individual cases. The Jordan requirements were not set in stone. The enquiry into the one death had been adequate. As to the coroner’s verdict, there was no existing power to make a free standing verdict of neglect. Did that infringe the family’s rights? It was more important to identify defects in the system than to make findings of individual neglect. The Coroners Rules must be read so as to fit Human Rights law, and rule 42 should be read so as only to prevent findings of individual neglect. Coroners’ proceedings should not become adversarial. The state may have an adjectival duty under ECHR Article 2 in a case which did not involve an allegation of an intentional killing.
Lord Woolf, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Laws and Lord Justice Dyson
Times 18-Apr-2002, Gazette 10-May-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 390, [2003] QB 581
Coroners Rules 1984 (1984 No 552) 42, European Convention on Human Rights 2
England and Wales
Applied – Edwards v The United Kingdom ECHR 14-Mar-2002
The deceased, a young man of mixed race, had been placed in a cell with another prisoner who was known to be violent, racist, and mentally unstable. The staff knew that the panic button was defective. The deceased was murdered by his cell-mate. His . .
Cited – Stephen Jordan v The United Kingdom (1) ECHR 14-Mar-2000
A commanding officer had decided that a soldier should be held in custody pending trial. The soldier complained that since the same commanding officer would later be involved in the preparation of the case against him, that decision was tainted and . .
Cited – Regina v North Humberside and Scunthorpe Coroner ex parte Jamieson CA 27-Apr-1994
The deceased prisoner had hanged himself. He had been a known suicide risk, and his brother said that the authorities being so aware, the death resulted from their lack of care. The inquest heard in full the circumstannces leading up to the death, . .
Appealed to – Amin, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Oct-2003
Prisoner’s death – need for full public enquiry
The deceased had been a young Asian prisoner. He was placed in a cell overnight with a prisoner known to be racist, extremely violent and mentally unstable. He was killed. The family sought an inquiry into the death.
Held: There had been a . .
Appeal from – Middleton, Regina (on the Application of) v Coroner for the Western District of Somerset Admn 14-Dec-2001
The deceased had committed suicide whilst in prison. It was argued that the prison should have recognised that he was a suicide risk, and acted accordingly. The coroner had requested a note from the jury as to the cause of death. The court . .
Appealed to – Middleton, Regina (on the Application of) v Coroner for the Western District of Somerset HL 11-Mar-2004
The deceased had committed suicide in prison. His family felt that the risk should have been known to the prison authorities, and that they had failed to guard against that risk. The coroner had requested an explanatory note from the jury.
Cited – Khan, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Coroner for West Hertfordshire and Another Admn 7-Mar-2002
The deceased died in police custody. The coroner refused to leave to the jury possible verdicts of unlawful killing, or death contributed to by neglect, or breach of his right to life. He adjourned the hearing to allow this challenge.
Held: . .
Cited – Khan, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health CA 10-Oct-2003
The claimant’s child had died as a result of negligence in hospital. The parents had been told the result of police investigation and decision not to prosecute, and the hospital’s own investigation, but had not been sufficiently involved. There . .
Appeal from – Amin, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Oct-2003
Prisoner’s death – need for full public enquiry
The deceased had been a young Asian prisoner. He was placed in a cell overnight with a prisoner known to be racist, extremely violent and mentally unstable. He was killed. The family sought an inquiry into the death.
Held: There had been a . .
Appeal from – Middleton, Regina (on the Application of) v Coroner for the Western District of Somerset HL 11-Mar-2004
The deceased had committed suicide in prison. His family felt that the risk should have been known to the prison authorities, and that they had failed to guard against that risk. The coroner had requested an explanatory note from the jury.
Appeal from – Middleton, Regina (on the Application of) v Coroner for the Western District of Somerset HL 11-Mar-2004
The deceased had committed suicide in prison. His family felt that the risk should have been known to the prison authorities, and that they had failed to guard against that risk. The coroner had requested an explanatory note from the jury.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.170038
The applicant appealed a refusal of permission to use a computer for preparation of materials for his litigation save under conditions imposed by the Prisons Service. He was dyslexic, and with a low IQ. He claimed that the conditions operated so as effectively to restrict his access to justice, and to interfere with his right for privacy for his correspondence.
Held: A balance was to be found with good order and discipline, and security, and the prisoner’s rights. Circumstances might exist where restrictions on the use of a computer would interfere with both rights, but in this case they did not save only the restriction on their use to overnight hours..
Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Clarke, Lady Justice Arden
[2002] EWHC 215 (Admin )
England and Wales
Cited – Regina (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 23-May-2001
A prison policy requiring prisoners not to be present when their property was searched and their mail was examined was unlawful. The policy had been introduced after failures in search procedures where officers had been intimidated by the presence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167662
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 from refusal of a finding that his subsequent detention had been unlawful.
Held: Though there had been conceded breaches by the SS, ‘there is no link, let alone a direct link, between, on the one hand, the Minister’s wrongful failure for 12 days to provide to the appellant an adequate explanation for his recall and, on the other, the lawfulness of his detention. The failure did not delay reference of his case to the First-tier Tribunal. Nor has the appellant suggested that it delayed institution of the present proceedings. Even if it had created delay, the unequivocal statement of Lord Mance and Lord Hughes in the Kaiyam case about the limited effects of a violation of article 5(4) would appear to exclude the relevance of the delay to the validity of the detention itself.’
The SS did concede an infringement of the claimant’s human rights, and damages had to be assessed, as to which: ‘damages should not be payable to the appellant for the breach of his right under article 5(2) of the Convention any more than that they should be payable for the breach of his right at common law. He has failed to establish that their effects on him were sufficiently grave. Nor would a formal declaration in this court’s order add anything to my recording in this judgment of the Minister’s concessions’
Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Toulson
[2016] UKSC 46, [2017] AC 52, [2016] 3 WLR 590, [2016] Med LR 551, [2016] WLR(D) 424, (2016) 151 BMLR 1, (2016) 19 CCL Rep 383, UKSC 2014/0248
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary
Human Rights Act 1998, Mental Health Act 1983 42(3)
England and Wales
At Admn – Lee-Hirons, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another Admn 28-Jun-2013
This case raises, among other matters, an issue about whether reasons for a restricted patient’s recall to detention in a hospital have to be provided orally or in writing. . .
Appeal from – Lee-Hirons, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice and Another CA 1-May-2014
The Court was asked significant questions as to the procedure to be followed when a person is recalled by the Secretary of State to be detained in a hospital under the power conferred by section 42(3) of the Mental Health Act 1983. The Appellant . .
Cited – Christie v Leachinsky HL 25-Mar-1947
Arrested Person must be told basis of the Arrest
Police officers appealed against a finding of false imprisonment. The plaintiff had been arrested under the 1921 Act, but this provided no power of arrest (which the appellant knew). The officers might lawfully have arrested the plaintiff for the . .
Cited – X v United Kingdom ECHR 5-Nov-1981
(Commission) The application was made a patient, restricted under the 1959 Act. A mental health review tribunal which concluded that the continued detention of a restricted patient was no longer justified had power to recommend but not to order the . .
Cited – Fox, Campbell and Hartley v The United Kingdom ECHR 30-Aug-1990
The court considered the required basis for a reasonable suspicion to found an arrest without a warrant: ‘The ‘reasonableness’ of the suspicion on which an arrest must be based forms an essential part of the safeguard against arbitrary arrest and . .
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 – Cullen v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (Northern Ireland) HL 10-Jul-2003
The claimant had been arrested. He had been refused access to a solicitor whilst detaiined, but, in breach of statutory duty, he had not been given reasons as to why access was denied. He sought damages for that failure.
Held: If damages were . .
Cited – MM, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 6-Jul-2007
Challenge to directions given by the respondent for the recall of the appellant to a mental hospital.
Held: The breach of a condition would, if of ‘sufficient significance’ justify a recall. . .
Cited – 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 . .
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 – Mandalia v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 14-Oct-2015
The Court considered the guidance given to UK Border Agency case workers when considering document submitted by persons applying for leave to enter or stay in the UK as foreign students. M had applied to study here, but had not accompanied his . .
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 – 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 – Zagidulina v Russia ECHR 2-May-2013
The Court limited itself to article 5(1)(e), when it stated that: ‘the notion of ‘lawfulness’ in the context of article 5(1)(e) of the Convention might have a broader meaning than in national legislation. Lawfulness of detention necessarily presumes . .
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.
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.567607
The Court limited itself to article 5(1)(e), when it stated that: ‘the notion of ‘lawfulness’ in the context of article 5(1)(e) of the Convention might have a broader meaning than in national legislation. Lawfulness of detention necessarily presumes a ‘fair and proper procedure’, including the requirement ‘that any measure depriving a person of his liberty should issue from and be executed by an appropriate authority and should not be arbitrary’ (see Winterwerp, cited above, 45, Johnson v The United Kingdom, 24 October 1997, 60, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VII, and more recently Venios v Greece, Application No 33055/08, 48, 5 July 2011 with further references).’
11737/06 – Chamber Judgment, [2013] ECHR 398
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Cited – Haney and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice SC 10-Dec-2014
The four claimants, each serving indeterminate prison sentences, said that as they approached the times when thy might apply for parol, they had been given insufficient support and training to meet the requirements for release. The courts below had . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.491944
The claimant, serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection, challenged the failure by the respondent to provide him with access to the rehabilitative work which would allow him to seek early release.
Held: The claim failed.
Supperstone J
[2013] EWHC 1340 (Admin)
England and Wales
Cited – Brown v The Parole Board for Scotland, The Scottish Ministers and Another SC 1-Nov-2017
The court was asked whether the duty under article 5 to provide prisoners with a real opportunity for rehabilitation applied to prisoners serving extended sentences. The prisoner was subject to an extended sentence, but had been released on licence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.509992
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 3; Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award
The applicant was ordered to strip naked and was subjected to humiliating abuse by guards when he tried to exercise his right to vote in facilities provided in prison. His complaint of degrading treatment was upheld.
(2001) 38 EHRR 148, 25196/94, [2001] ECHR 748, [2001] ECHR 757
European Convention on Human Rights 3
Human Rights
Cited – Wainwright and another v Home Office HL 16-Oct-2003
The claimant and her son sought to visit her other son in Leeds Prison. He was suspected of involvement in drugs, and therefore she was subjected to strip searches. There was no statutory support for the search. The son’s penis had been touched . .
Cited – Adam, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Limbuela v Same; Tesema v Same HL 3-Nov-2005
The applicants had each entered the UK with a view to seeking asylum, but having failed to seek asylum immediately, they had been refused any assistance, were not allowed to work and so had been left destitute. Each had claimed asylum on the day . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166787
Where a parole board took two years to consider the applicant’s parole, this was unreasonable, and a breach of the Article 5.4 requirement to deal with such matters speedily. Accordingly the continued detention of the applicant became unlawful. The provisions apply not only to original proceedings, but also to statutory automatic reviews of detention. No standard time can be set down, because the situations of detention and of the prisoners varies. The automatic two year period left the applicant with no opportunity to seek an earlier review of detention. The Court awarded damages of andpound;1000 for a breach of Article 5(4) but said: ‘the court considers that the applicant must have suffered feelings of frustration, uncertainty and anxiety flowing from the delay in review which cannot be compensated solely by the finding of violation’.
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-4; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
Times 24-Oct-2000, 36273/97, [2000] ECHR 432, [2000] ECHR 433
European Convention on Hman Rights 5-4
Cited – Murray v The Parole Board Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 6-Nov-2003
The applicant had been convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He had twice previously been released on licence and had his licence revoked. His tarriff had expired The period between reviews of his detention had been two years, but . .
Cited – Regina v Parole Board, ex parte MacNeil CA 18-Apr-2001
The interval between occasions of consideration of the granting of parole to a discretionary life prisoner, was to be determined on the facts and circumstances of each prisoner. There was no rule that the maximum period between reviews was to be two . .
Cited – Degainis, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 3-Feb-2010
The claimant sought damages. He had been released from prison and recalled, but the review of his continued detention was not undertaken as it should have been. The defendant said that the acknowledgement and apology were sufficient just . .
Confirmed – Hirst v United Kingdom ECHR 24-Jul-2001
The applicant asserted that the delays in the reviews, undertaken by the Parole Board, of his continued detention as a discretionary life prisoner, was a breach of his right to a speedy decision. The delays were between 21 and 24 months. Such delays . .
Cited – 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.
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165935
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 8; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings
The Commission had found a violation of article 8 where the prison had opened a number of letters, probably not deliberately, but repeatedly. This amounted to an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence within the meaning of article 8 and the court awarded 5,000 French francs by way of compensation.
Bratza P
[1999] ECHR 173, 34821/97
European Convention on Human Rights 8
Human Rights
Cited – Bruton v The Governor of HMP Swaleside and Another Admn 19-Apr-2017
The prisoner complained that his protected correspondence had been wrongfully opened by prison staff. Despite a finding in his favour by the Prisons Ombudsman, the service had repeatedly failed either to change its behaviour or to apologise.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165805
The applicant suffered serious brain damage and was an untreatable psychopath. He was convicted of numerous violent offences and sentenced to a period of imprisonment. He was also sentenced to preventive detention under the Norwegian Penal Code, as result of which he was detained in mental hospitals. The effect of this sentence was to enable the Ministry of Justice to monitor his progress and to release or detain him when this would prove appropriate. It gave the ministry a wide discretion in deciding which of various possible security measures was to be imposed and for how long. The court observed that this system shared a number of features with the Belgian system in regard to recidivists and habitual offenders which was at issue in the Van Droogenbroeck case: ‘Under such systems the courts cannot at the time of their decisions do more than assess how the person concerned will develop in the future. The authorities, on the other hand, through and with the assistance of their officers, can monitor that development more closely and at frequent intervals.’ There remained a risk that time the link between the ministry’s decision not to release or to re-detain and the initial judgment might be broken with the result that it would be transformed into a deprivation of liberty that was arbitrary.
11701/85, (1994) 17 EHRR 30, [1990] ECHR 17
Cited – Giles, Regina (on the Application of) v Parole Board and Another HL 31-Jul-2003
The defendant had been sentenced for offences of violence, but an additional period was imposed to protect the public. He had been refused leave for reconsideration of that part of his sentence after he completed the normal segment of his sentence. . .
Cited – 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: . .
Cited – Whiston, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 25-Oct-2012
The claimant was a prisoner released on a home detention licence, but his licence had been revoked. He now said that the way it had been revoked, without the respondent’s decision being subject to confirmation by the Parole Board, nor to other . .
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.
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165080
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-4; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses – claim rejected
11400/85, (1990) 12 EHRR 210, [1989] ECHR 19
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.
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165044
The applicant, aged 17, was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment in the interests of public safety, being considered by the trial judge on appeal to be dangerous.
Held: ‘The court agrees with the Commission and the applicant that the clearly stated purpose for which [the] sentence was imposed, taken together with the particular facts pertaining to the offence for which he was convicted, places the sentence in a special category.’ In substance, Mr Weeks was being put at the disposal of the state because he needed continued supervision in custody for an unforeseeable length of time and, as a corollary, periodic reassessment in order to ascertain the most appropriate way of dealing with him, and added: ‘The grounds expressly relied on by the sentencing courts for ordering this form of deprivation of liberty against Mr Weeks are by their very nature susceptible of change with the passage of time, whereas the measure will remain in force for the whole of his life. In this, his sentence differs from a life sentence imposed on a person because of the gravity of the offence.’ The Parole Board for England and Wales has the necessary independence to constitute a ‘court’ for the purposes of Article 5(4). In considering whether the prisoner should be released, the Board will consider whether the prisoner remains a danger to the public. The freedom enjoyed by a discretionary life sentence prisoner on licence is ‘more circumscribed in law and more precarious than the freedom enjoyed by the ordinary citizen’ but is, nonetheless, a state of liberty for the purposes of article 5 of the Convention.
Times 05-Mar-1987, 9787/82, (1988) 10 EHRR 293, [2008] ECHR 18, [1987] ECHR 3
European Convention on Human Rights 5.4
Reserved from – Weeks v The United Kingdom ECHR 5-Oct-1988
The Court was asked as to the recall to prison of a prisoner who had been released on licence. His recall and subsequent detention were considered by the Board, but under the system then in place it could only make a non-binding recommendation. . .
Cited – Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Oct-1990
The applicants, discretionary life prisoners, complained of a violation on the ground that they were not able to have the continued lawfulness of their detention decided by a court at reasonable intervals throughout their imprisonment.
Held: A . .
Cited – O’Neill v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 9-Mar-1999
The appellant pleaded guilty to an assault with a knife upon a stranger. He had a previous conviction for assault causing severe injury and permanent disfigurement, and two previous convictions for inter alia attempted murder and assault. He had . .
Cited – Giles, Regina (on the Application of) v Parole Board and Another HL 31-Jul-2003
The defendant had been sentenced for offences of violence, but an additional period was imposed to protect the public. He had been refused leave for reconsideration of that part of his sentence after he completed the normal segment of his sentence. . .
Cited – 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: . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Roberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .
Cited – Stafford v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-May-2002
Grand Chamber – The appellant claimed damages for being held in prison beyond the term of his sentence. Having been released on licence from a life sentence for murder, he was re-sentenced for a cheque fraud. He was not released after the end of the . .
Cited – Hirst v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 6-Jul-2006
The prisoner had been released on licence but then recalled. He complained that the procedure infringed his human rights. He had been convicted of manslaughter, and was seen to be a long term danger. The court awarded him compensation saying that . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Justice v Walker; Same v James CA 1-Feb-2008
The claimant had been sentenced to a short period of imprisonment but with an indeterminate term until he demonstrated that it was no longer necessary for the protection of the public. He complained that the term having expired, no opportunity had . .
Cited – Brooke and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v The Parole Board and Another CA 1-Feb-2008
The claimant prisoner complained that the Parole Board was insufficiently independent of government to provide a fair hearing. The court at first instance had found that the relationship between the Parole Board and the sponsoring Department put the . .
Cited – Black, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice HL 21-Jan-2009
The appellant complained that the system for considering the release of a life prisoner did not comply with the Convention when the decision was made by the Secretary of State and not by the Parole Board, or the court. The Board had recommended his . .
Cited – Whiston, Regina (on The Application of) SC 2-Jul-2014
The claimant, having been released from prison on licence, objected to the procedure whereby his licence was revoked with no means for him to challenge that decision.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Article 5(4) did not apply to the particular . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.164979
Hudoc Violation of Art. 5-3; Just satisfaction reserved
1936/63, [1968] ECHR 1
European Convention on Human Rights
See Also – Neumeister v Austria ECHR 6-Jul-1964
The applicant complained of his excessive detention on remand pending trial, suspected of fraud. . .
See Also – Neumeister v Austria ECHR 7-May-1974
The applicant complained, inter alia, of the length of time he had spent in detention while on remand from 24 February to 12 May 1961, that is, two months and sixteen days, and from 12 July 1962 to 16 September 1964, that is two years, two months . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.164855
The claimant prisoner complained of the delay in his release, awaiting a review. Domestic court proceedings had lasted two and a half months at first instance and a further three months on appeal. The proceedings had been brought by the public prosecutor to obtain an extension of the period during which the applicant, who had been convicted of attempted murder, was confined in a secure institution where he was being treated. The proceedings were based on the institution’s assessment that the applicant remained dangerous. The applicant unsuccessfully opposed the proceedings on a technical ground relating to jurisdiction.
Held: There had been a violation of article 5(4) as a result of delay in the holding of a hearing to determine whether the prolongation of detention was necessary, following the expiry of the period initially authorised. The court also held that there had been no violation of article 5(1). The purpose of article 5(1) was to prevent persons from being deprived of their liberty in an arbitrary fashion, and, on the facts, the detention during the period of the delay could not be regarded as involving an arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
[2001] ECHR 478, 32605/96, [2001] ECHR 482
European Convention on Hman Rights 5(1)
Human Rights
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.
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.164823
Lord Reed
[2001] ScotCS 169
Scotland
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.164243
The Claimant, a serving life prisoner, completed his minimum custodial term in 2010. He had still not yet been released. He contended that he was not provided with a place in open conditions and subsequently a place on temporary licence overnight in premises approved under section 13 of the 2007 Act, because, in breach of his domestic law duties and obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, the Secretary of State had failed to make reasonable provision for systems and resources to enable life and other indeterminate sentence prisoners such as they require to demonstrate that they no longer present an unacceptable risk to the public.
Hickinbottom J
[2015] EWHC 11 (Admin)
Offender Management Act 2007 13
England and Wales
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.541486
Bean LJ, Peter Thornton QC Chief Coroner
[2015] EWHC 31 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.541397
Justice King
[2018] EWHC 2819 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.628043
Conditions to be imposed on release on licence
Kerr J
[2018] EWHC 2714 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.628041
[2003] NIQB 62
Northern Ireland
Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.186267
Mr Justice Stanley Burnton
[2004] EWHC 2857 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.220355
Gibbs J
[2004] EWHC 2281 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.219214
Recall from parole
Mr Justice Keith
[2004] EWHC 2521 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.219274
The applicant complained that she had been subject to degrading treatment, by virtue of the conditions under which she had first been held in a police cell, and subsequently in prison. She was very severely disabled, and the treatment was unsuitable for her needs, in that male officers had been used to assist her attend the toilet, and that she had been kept in conditions which, for her, had been dangerously cold, with a risk of developing sores, and left her unable to attend the toilet or keep herself clean. Though no intention had been shown to humiliate here, the question must be looked at in the light of her particular circumstances and needs, and the treatment had been degrading. ‘There is no evidence in this case of any positive intention to humiliate or debase the applicant. However, the Court considers that to detain a severely disabled person in conditions where she is dangerously cold, risks developing sores because her bed is too hard or unreachable, and is unable to go to the toilet or keep clean without the greatest of difficulty, constitutes degrading treatment contrary to Article 3.’
Judge Sir Nicolas Bratza, in which Judge Costa joined, made clear that the primary responsibility lay not with the police or the prison authorities: ‘but with the judicial authorities who committed the applicant to an immediate term of imprisonment for contempt of court.
While there appear on the material before the court to have been certain failings in the standard of care provided by the police and prison authorities, these stemmed in large part from the lack of preparedness on the part of both to receive and look after a severely handicapped person in conditions which were wholly unsuited to her needs. On the other hand, I can see no justification for the decision to commit the applicant to an immediate term of imprisonment without at the very least ensuring in advance that there existed both adequate facilities for detaining her and conditions of detention in which her special needs could be met.’
Costa Pres, Fuhrmann J, Loucaides J, Bratza J, Greve J, Traja J, Ugrekhelidze J
Times 13-Aug-2001, 33394/96, [2001] ECHR 453, [2001] ECHR 458, [2011] ECHR 2270
European Convention on Human Rights 3
Cited – Regina v Qazi and Another CACD 4-Nov-2010
The defendant appealed against sentence, saying that given his serious medical condition, any imprisonment would threaten his human rights.
Held: The court set out the law. A court imposing a sentence should not concern itself with the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159479
The Claimant, an Irish citizen, challenged the decision of the Defendant, the Secretary of State for the Home Department refusing to deport him to the Republic of Ireland
[2019] EWHC 488 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.634217
[2001] EWCA Civ 331
England and Wales
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147459
The defendant prisoner had been disciplined for using a racist term against a prison officer. He complained that the failure to give reasons for the finding of guilt made the decision void.
Held: The disciplinary proceedings could lead to loss of remission, and therefore his liberty was at stake. However there was no statutory duty to give reasons and it could not be a condition of the legality that reasons be given. Governors should nevertheless comply with the directions given in the Prisons Manual and provide the prisoner and other to whom any appeal may be brought with a full and reliable record of the adjudication and reasons for rejecting the prisoners defence.
Lightman J
Times 15-Nov-2004, [2004] EWHC 2522 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.219516
[1999] EWCA Civ 2079
England and Wales
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.146994
[1999] EWHC Admin 386
Criminal Justice Act 1991 32(6)
England and Wales
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.139650
Application for judicial review, seeking a declaration that her detention under Immigration Act powers was unlawful, and she seeks damages for false imprisonment.
Held: The Claimant’s claims succeed on Grounds 2 and 3, but not on Ground 1. The Claimant’s detention from 20 September to 13 October 2017 was unlawful and she is entitled to damages for the tort of false imprisonment.
[2018] EWHC 2684 (Admin), [2018] WLR(D) 630
England and Wales
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.625911
Holman J
[2017] EWHC 3844 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.625888
[2013] EWHC 4657 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.543033
Jay J
[2014] EWHC 4350 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.541623
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 his impending release from hospital, the respondent ordered him to be returned to prison. He absconded form the hospital in ignorance of his recall.
Held: The order for his return to prison had been made without particular regard to the hospitalization.
Kay J
Times 13-Nov-2002, Gazette 09-Jan-2003
Mental Health Act 1983 3 50(4), Criminal Justice Act 1991 39(2), Prison Act 1952 49(2)
England and Wales
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.178074
A challenge under article 5 to decisions about a prisoner’s treatment were misconceived in the context of the Secretary of State’s refusal to transfer a prisoner to open conditions with a view to improving his prospects of release: ‘[Article 5(4)] is not to do with how persons are treated while they were detained or where they are placed in the prison system. Other parts of the Convention, none of which are suggested to have been infringed in this case, deal with those matters. That being so, there is no obvious way in which Article 5 has any connection with the decision which is at the moment complained of as to whether this man should in be enclosed or open conditions.’
Buxton LJ
[2000] Prison Law Reports 62
European Convention on Human Rights 5
England and Wales
Cited – Regina (on the Application of Cawser) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 5-Nov-2003
The claimant was serving a prison sentence for serious sexual offences. He would not be released until he had completed a sex offenders programme, but one was not made available, delaying his release.
Held: ‘The Secretary of State is not under . .
See Also – Regina (Gunn) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Regina (Kelly) v Same Regina (Zahid Khan) v Same CA 14-Jun-2001
The new Regulations and court rules expressly reserved to a costs judge the decision about whether a costs order should be made against the Legal Services Commission. The former practice of the trial judge making this decision must no longer apply. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.187523
Revocation of licence – offence of assault.
Mr Justice Forbes
[2004] EWHC 1930 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.200347
The prisoner had been convicted of three murders in 1988 and sentenced to life imprisonment. He now sought the setting by the court of a minimum period he was to be required to serve. The Home Secretary had set it at 25 years.
Held: The prisoner had made exceptional progress since conviction, and this could be allowed for. The 2003 Act did not justify reductions on this basis beyond one or two years. Two years would be allowed now. Allowing other factors, the total reuction would be six years.
Stanley Burnton J
Times 26-May-2006
Criminal Justice Act 2003 Sch 22
England and Wales
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.242439
The prisoner awaited trial. Among the prosecution witnesses was his partner. They now sought to marry. The applicant sought to prevent the marriage on the basis that this would make her non-compellable as a witness.
Held: Public policy considerations did not apply to prevent the marriage. The duty on the registrar to issue a certificate was absolute. Public policy might provide a reason, but did not in this case. Entering into a lawful marriage could not be an attempt to pervert the course of justice. The right to marry is a human right, and it was not for the prison governor to exercise his discretion to prevent it, since such a discretion could not be exercised save on public policy grounds.
Dame Butler-Sloss President, Waller LJ, Sir Philip Otton
Times 14-Nov-2002, Gazette 23-Jan-2003
Marriage Act 1949 27A(3) 31(2), European Convention on Human Rights 12
England and Wales
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.178142
The applicants sought orders that their human rights had been infringed by the conditions of their detention at police stations. One asserted that he had not had opportunity to speak to his solicitor on the phone in private, and the other complained that the arrangements did not guarantee privacy. The court rejected the claims on the basis that the deprivation of the right was either theoretical in one case or illusory in the other. There was no evidence of actual interference with the prisoners human rights. Human Rights jurisprudence had suggested that there was no need to demonstrate actual prejudice, but the UK Act required the court to establish a municipal jurisprudence of human rights. Our common law rights are not lessened or weakened by being re-shaped to fit the facts of particular cases. The rights under the Act and Convention had always to be read in the particular context.
Lord Justice Laws, Mr Justice Poole
Times 17-Aug-2001, Gazette 06-Sep-2001, [2001] EWHC Admin 553
European Convention on Human Rights, Human Rights Act 1998 2
England and Wales
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.159951
Challenge to refusal to transfer the claimant prisoner to open conditions.
[2019] EWHC 444 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634211
Foskett J
[2014] EWHC 3474 (Admin)
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974
England and Wales
Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.538255
Judicial Review of a decision of the Scottish Ministers not to commence the Petitioner’s application for a Home Detention Curfew Licence until 9 November 2018
[2019] ScotCS CSOH – 18
Scotland
Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.634497
7334/13 – Chamber Judgment, [2015] ECHR 290
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.545057
Application for judicial review of calculation of prisoner’s release date.
[2005] EWHC 1991 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.230108
The prisoner was awaiting sentence. He had dismissed his legal team, and wanted to appoint Italian lawyers, and avvocato to advise him, in the expectation that the Italian lawyer would later engage English lawyers to present his case in court. He wanted his lawyer to see him in prison, and appealed the prison’s refusal to allow access for the lawyer.
Held: The rule required a ‘legal adviser’, and an avvocato was included within the 1978 order, which in turn implemented European Law. As a prisoner awaiting sentence, he was undergoing a trial process, and had his rights governed by the Convention, which meant that he must have adequate opportunity to prepare his mitigation and his defence. The Italian lawyer must be allowed entry to the prison.
Jackson J
Gazette 31-Oct-2002, Times 05-Nov-2002
Prison Rules 1999 2, European Communities (Services of Lawyers) Order 1978, European Convention on Human Rights
England and Wales
Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.177844