Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Hepworth, Fenton-Palmer and Baldonzy and Regina v Parole Board ex parte Winfield: Admn 25 Mar 1997

The applicants for judicial review had each been convicted and sentenced for sex offences. Each maintained his innocence, and now complained that that fact had prejudiced decisions as to early release on parole and as to their categorisation.
Held: The court identified four issues (1) The Parole Board must assume the prisoner’s guilt of the offence. (2) The Board’s first duty is to assess the risk to the public of re-offending (3) It is unlawful for the Board to deny a recommendation for parole on the ground only that the prisoner continues to deny his guilt. (4) In some cases, particularly of serious persistent violent or sexual crime, a continued denial of guilt will almost inevitably mean that the risk posed by the prisoner remains high. The Board is then entitled (perhaps obliged) to deny a recommendation. As to the cases of refusing re-categorisation, these touched on matters where a very clear case would have to be established before a review would be given. Review was denied.

Judges:

Laws J

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 324

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1991 33(5), Prison Rules 1964 3(1)

Citing:

CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Martin Lillycrop; Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Ronald George Powell; Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Andrew Scott Admn 27-Nov-1996
A continued denial of guilt alone is not sufficient to deny prisoner parole. ‘We consider that the Parole Board must approach its consideration of any application for parole on the basis that the Applicant has committed the offences of which he has . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Governor of Frankland Prison Ex Parte Zulfikar (1) QBD 26-Jul-1995
An admission of guilt by a prisoner is not a pre-requisite for granting him parole, but it is a question of the circumstances of each case. A prisoner denied his guilt of the offence of arson with intent to endanger life. The Parole Board declined . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Parole Board ex parte Zulfikar CA 28-Apr-1997
The applicant appealed refusal of leave to apply for judicial review of a refusal of parole. He denied his guilt of the offence, and complained it had improperly affected the decision.
Held: Since the decision appealed, the court had, in . .
CitedPotter and Others, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another Admn 30-Nov-2001
Four prisoners challenged the refusal to grant them enhanced status under the prison’s Incentives and Earned Privileges Scheme. Each maintained a denial of guilt and so was not eligible for a treatment programme.
Held: The applications failed. . .
CitedCannan v HMP Full Sutton Admn 29-Jun-2009
The prisoner challenged his re-assessment for a status of ‘standard’ within a scheme operated by the prison allocating privileges according to behaviour. He maintained denial of guilt for the offences for which had been convicted and so was unable . .
CitedRoberts, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 12-Mar-2004
The claimant complained at a decision not to reduce his Category A status to that of a category B prisoner. He continued to maintain his innocence of the murders for which he had been convicted. He was therefore ineligible to take part in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.137269

Regina v Governor of HM Prison Whitemoor ex parte Main: Admn 17 Feb 1997

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 152

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See AlsoRegina v Governor of Whitemoor Prison, Ex parte Main QBD 1999
The court considered whether prison staff should be able to read letters between a prisoner and his legal advisers before proceedings were actually commenced.
Held: The policy represented the minimum intrusion into the rights of prisoners . .

Cited by:

See alsoRegina v Governor of Whitemoor Prison, Ex parte Main QBD 1999
The court considered whether prison staff should be able to read letters between a prisoner and his legal advisers before proceedings were actually commenced.
Held: The policy represented the minimum intrusion into the rights of prisoners . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.137097

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Zulfikar: Admn 18 Feb 1997

The applicant sought leave to present an applicant for judicial review. He had wanted parole, but the parole board considered that his continued denial of guilt meant that he was unwilling to address the causes of his offending.
Held: The reasoning of the Parole Board correctly followed the case of Lillycrop and Powell. Leave refused.

Judges:

Kay J

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 161

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

AppliedRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Martin Lillycrop; Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Ronald George Powell; Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Andrew Scott Admn 27-Nov-1996
A continued denial of guilt alone is not sufficient to deny prisoner parole. ‘We consider that the Parole Board must approach its consideration of any application for parole on the basis that the Applicant has committed the offences of which he has . .
Appealed toRegina v Parole Board ex parte Zulfikar CA 28-Apr-1997
The applicant appealed refusal of leave to apply for judicial review of a refusal of parole. He denied his guilt of the offence, and complained it had improperly affected the decision.
Held: Since the decision appealed, the court had, in . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Parole Board ex parte Zulfikar CA 28-Apr-1997
The applicant appealed refusal of leave to apply for judicial review of a refusal of parole. He denied his guilt of the offence, and complained it had improperly affected the decision.
Held: Since the decision appealed, the court had, in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.137106

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Martin Lillycrop; Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Ronald George Powell; Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Andrew Scott: Admn 27 Nov 1996

A continued denial of guilt alone is not sufficient to deny prisoner parole. ‘We consider that the Parole Board must approach its consideration of any application for parole on the basis that the Applicant has committed the offences of which he has been convicted. It is not the function of the Parole Board to investigate possible miscarriages of justice or to give effect in their considerations to any personal misgivings they may have about the correctness of any particular conviction.’ and ‘Thus, it is said that whilst the Parole Board certainly take the completion of a course of treatment as a positive factor in favour of any Applicant, the failure to complete such a course because of the denial of the commission of the offence leading to imprisonment should not be taken as a negative factor. In our judgment, this submission over simplifies the position.’ and ‘That being so, where the pattern of offending behaviour is such that there is a significant risk of a further offence being committed, particularly an offence of a violent or a sexual nature, and an applicant does not demonstrate by his conduct in prison that such risk has been reduced to acceptable level, then a recommendation for parole is unlikely to be made. The conduct in prison to which a panel of the Parole Board will inevitably and rightly look, will be the extent to which the applicant has examined the behaviour which has led to his imprisonment. Where, because of denial that the offence has been committed, no such examination has taken place, it will be more difficult for an applicant to satisfy the Board that the risk he posed when he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment has been reduced to an acceptable level. We repeat in emphasis that each case must turn on its own particular facts.’

Judges:

Mr Justice Butterfield

Citations:

Times 13-Dec-1996, [1996] EWHC Admin 281

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

AppliedRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Zulfikar Admn 18-Feb-1997
The applicant sought leave to present an applicant for judicial review. He had wanted parole, but the parole board considered that his continued denial of guilt meant that he was unwilling to address the causes of his offending.
Held: The . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Hepworth, Fenton-Palmer and Baldonzy and Regina v Parole Board ex parte Winfield Admn 25-Mar-1997
The applicants for judicial review had each been convicted and sentenced for sex offences. Each maintained his innocence, and now complained that that fact had prejudiced decisions as to early release on parole and as to their categorisation.
CitedRegina v Parole Board ex parte Zulfikar CA 28-Apr-1997
The applicant appealed refusal of leave to apply for judicial review of a refusal of parole. He denied his guilt of the offence, and complained it had improperly affected the decision.
Held: Since the decision appealed, the court had, in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Prisons

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136829

The Home Office v Peter Maurice Burgess: CA 26 Oct 2000

Time spent in custody during a trial was not a ‘relevant period’ for the reduction of his sentence under the Act. An action for damages for false imprisonment, the claimant having been ordered to surrender to the court each day one hour before his trial, and to remain there during the days events, was bound to fail. The defendant had been released on bail with conditions about attendance during the trial. The times stated included times when the court was not sitting, and it was argued that they constituted relevant time. They did not. The order was a sensible way of maintaining good order in the trial by ensuring the defendant had no contact with witnesses.

Citations:

Times 14-Nov-2000, Gazette 07-Dec-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 279

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing, Torts – Other, Prisons

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135690

Browne, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parole Board of England and Wales: Admn 31 Aug 2016

The Claimant, a determinate sentence prisoner, recalled to prison following his release on licence, sought Judicial Review of the decision of the Parole Board not to direct his re-release following an oral hearing.

Judges:

McKenna HCJ

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 2178 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.568829

Younger v The United Kingdom: ECHR 7 Jan 2003

Prison authorities are not obliged to regard all prisoners as potential suicide risks. It was not shown that the police should have known that their prisoner was a suicide risk.

Citations:

57420/00, [2003] ECHR 706, (2003) 36 EHRR CD252

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

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

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.278336

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

Judges:

Silber J, Leveson J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2198 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See AlsoBuddington, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 14-Oct-2005
The prisoner complained that he had been recalled to prison under the new regulations after his release on licence in respect of an allegation of a breach which had occurred before the new regulations came into effect.
Held: The recall . .
See AlsoBuddington v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 27-Mar-2006
The court considered the validity of of the claimant’s recall to prison. The words ‘falls to be released’ in paragraph 23 mean ‘is entitled to be released’ or ‘is released’. The author of the Order may have been suffering from ‘Homeric exhaustion’. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.235190

X, Regina v: Admn 17 Feb 2005

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 305 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 2003 22

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedPractice Direction (Crime: Mandatory life sentences) (No 2) 29-Jul-2004
The direction gave practical guidance on the procedure for passing a mandatory life sentence under the Act . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.230105

Wells v The Parole Board and Another; Regina (Walker) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: QBD 31 Jul 2007

The prisoners challenged their continued detention. They had been sentenced and had served their tariff terms but had been continued to be detained for public protection, but with no current or effective assessment of what risk was posed.
Held: Such continued detention was unlawful.
Laws LJ described ‘further detention’ after the expiry of the tariff period as: ‘not at all justified by or at the time of sentence, for the very reason that the extent to which, or the time for which, the prisoner will remain a danger is unknown at the time of sentence … The justification for detention during the tariff period is of course spent; it is spent the moment the tariff expires.’

Judges:

Laws LJ, Mitting J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1835 (QB), [2007] EWHC 1835 (Admin), Times 11-Oct-2007, [2008] 1 All ER 138, [2007] ACD 86

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 2003 225

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

At Divisional CourtSecretary of State for Justice v James HL 6-May-2009
The applicant had been sentenced to an indefinite term for public protection, but the determinate part of his sentence had passed with no consideration as to whether his continued detention was required.
Held: The post tariff detention was not . .
Appeal FromSecretary 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 . .
CitedMartin Corey, Re for Judicial Review SC 4-Dec-2013
The appellant challenged his recall to prison from licence. He had been convicted in 1973 of the murder of two police officers. He had remained at liberty for 18 years, befire his licence was revoked on the basis of confidential iintelligence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.258491

Regina v Parole Board, Ex parte Bradley: QBD 1990

A Parole Board should scrutinise ever more anxiously whether the level of risk is unacceptable on considering the release of a prisoner, the longer the time the prisoner has spent in prison following the expiry of his tariff. The Board had to carry out a ‘balancing exercise’ between two interests, that of the prisoner and that of the public. The PB had to decide whether there was more than a perceptible or minimal risk that the prisoner might commit further serious offences of violence. The court said that the PB panel also had to have in mind all material considerations, which would include the ‘intrinsic and increasing unfairness of leaving the prisoner languishing in gaol, ex hypothesi for longer than punishment requires, unless there is sufficient public risk to justify this’.

Citations:

[1991] 1 WLR 134, [1990] COD 375, [1990] 3 All ER 828

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSturnham, 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 . .
CitedOsborn 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.

Criminal Sentencing, Prisons

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.534295

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Cummings: CA 22 Feb 2001

The Home Secretary had recalled a prisoner under emergency powers who had been released on licence. He was advised by the Parole Board, in an interim report, that the prisoner should be released. He rejected the advice and continued the detention.
Held: The powers he exercised were emergency ones. The Board’s interim recommendations could at best be provisional and tentative. He had no duty to follow it.

Citations:

Times 27-Feb-2001, Gazette 01-Mar-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 45

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 32(2), Criminal Justice Act 1997 32(4), Criminal Justice Act 1991 32

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing, Prisons

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88633

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 of a change of his category, and the reasons for it, and be given opportunity to make representations about it. This would not prevent a move for operational reasons not involving such a change in category. Such a change of category would significantly affect his chances of release. Lord Woolf: ‘I have found the question of what should be the outcome of this appeal by no means easy to determine. I accept the importance of the prison service being able to make decisions which are operationally important without having to go through the technical requirements of providing opportunities for making representations. However, the rules of fairness and natural justice are flexible and not static; they are capable of developing not only in relation to the expectations of contemporary society, but also to meet proper operational requirements. The ability of the prison service to meet both their operational needs and the needs for prisoners to be treated fairly can usually be achieved within the panoply of the requirements of fairness. On the whole, the courts will require considerable persuasion that administrative convenience justifies a departure from the principles of fairness which would otherwise be appropriate in a particular situation. However, the arguments which are advanced by the Home Office in this case, as I understand them, are not only ones of administrative convenience. They refer to operational difficulties and operational problems which could undermine the security and discipline within the prison system.
It seems to me basic that a decision which is as important as the present decision to Mr Hirst should not be taken without giving him the opportunity to make representations and to have the matter properly considered as a consequence of his so doing. I think that there is some substance, but would not overvalue it, in the problem referred to by Lord Justice Simon Brown which arise in reconsidering a decision [paragraph 58 above]. However, regardless of that difficulty, it seems to me that a decision of this nature as a matter of fairness should not be taken until Mr Hirst had been fully involved. He should have been given a reasonable period to make representations before the decision was taken. He should have been given that opportunity after he had been told the grounds upon which it was appropriate to recategorise him.”

Judges:

Lord Woolf C.J

Citations:

Times 22-Mar-2001, Gazette 03-May-2001, [2001] Prison Law Reports 147, [2001] EWCA Civ 378

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina (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 . .
CitedPalmer, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 19-Jul-2004
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 . .
CitedSecretary 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Criminal Sentencing, Prisons

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85975

Regina (Pearson Martinez and Hirst) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Others; Hirst v Attorney-General: QBD 17 Apr 2001

A law which removed a prisoner’s right to vote whilst in prison was not incompatible with his human rights. The implied right to vote under article 3 was not absolute, and states had a wide margin of appreciation as to how and to what extent the right should be limited, provided that the conditions should not curtail the rights to such an extent as to remove their effectiveness, and should only be imposed in pursuit of a legitimate aim, and should not be disproportionate.

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy

Citations:

Times 17-Apr-2001, Gazette 07-Jun-2001, [2001] EWHC Admin 239

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Representation of the People Act 1983 3 (1), European Convention on Human Rights 3

Cited by:

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

Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights, Elections, Prisons, Elections, Human Rights

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85999

Boner v United Kingdom (30/2993/425/504), Maxwell v Same: ECHR 1 Nov 1994

The refusal of Legal Aid for appeal for long term prisoners was breach of Human Rights Convention.
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-3-c; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings

Citations:

Times 01-Nov-1994, 18711/91, [1994] ECHR 36

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Legal Aid, Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78480

British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Ahmad: Admn 11 Jan 2012

The BBC wished to interview the prisoner who had been detained pending extradition to the US since 2004, and now challenged decision to refuse the interview.
Held: The claim succeeded. The decision was quashed and must be retaken. If ever any case justified exceptional treatment, this was one. He had been held without trial for seven years, and had been seriously assaulted on his arrest. Whatever he was accused of had taken place in the UK, and the CPS had decided that there were insufficent grounds for a prosecution. The policy itself allowed exceptions to the writing only communications rule, and ‘even after giving appropriate weight to the views of the Secretary of State, the decision . . constitutes a disproportionate interference with the right to freedom of expression in article 10. In the circumstances of this particular case, the justification for that interference has not been ‘convincingly established’, as the jurisprudence on article 10 requires.’

Judges:

Hooper LJ, Singh J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 13 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii, Judiciary

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedWest Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette 14-Jun-1943
(United States Supreme Court) Jackson J said: ‘If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion . .
CitedHuang v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 21-Mar-2007
Appellate Roles – Human Rights – Families Split
The House considered the decision making role of immigration appellate authorities when deciding appeals on Human Rights grounds, against refusal of leave to enter or remain, under section 65. In each case the asylum applicant had had his own . .
CitedA v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Dec-2004
The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they . .
CitedRegina v British Broadcasting Corporation ex parte Pro-life Alliance HL 15-May-2003
The Alliance was a political party seeking to air its party election broadcast. The appellant broadcasters declined to broadcast the film on the grounds that it was offensive, being a graphical discussion of the processes of abortion.
Held: . .
CitedRegina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others HL 28-Oct-1999
(Orse Kebeline) The DPP’s appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for . .
CitedBladet Tromso and Stensaas v Norway ECHR 20-May-1999
A newspaper and its editor complained that their right to freedom of expression had been breached when they were found liable in defamation proceedings for statements in articles which they had published about the methods used by seal hunters in the . .
CitedHandyside v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Dec-1976
Freedom of Expression is Fundamental to Society
The appellant had published a ‘Little Red Schoolbook’. He was convicted under the 1959 and 1964 Acts on the basis that the book was obscene, it tending to deprave and corrupt its target audience, children. The book claimed that it was intended to . .
CitedThe Sunday Times (No 1) v The United Kingdom ECHR 26-Apr-1979
Offence must be ;in accordance with law’
The court considered the meaning of the need for an offence to be ‘in accordance with law.’ The applicants did not argue that the expression prescribed by law required legislation in every case, but contended that legislation was required only where . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Powis CA 1981
Material not available to the decision maker should not normally be admitted on an application for a judicial review of that decision. The court described three categories of acceptable new evidence: (1) evidence to show what material was before the . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State For The Home Department, Ex Parte Launder HL 13-Mar-1997
The question arose as to whether or not the decision of the Secretary of State to extradite the applicant to Hong Kong would have amounted to a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. Although the Convention was not at that time in force . .
CitedBamber v United Kingdom ECHR 11-Sep-1997
The Commission declared inadmissible a complaint that Standing Order 5 G 2B infringed Article 10. The Order precluded prisoners from contacting the media by telephone except in exceptional circumstances. The Standing Order satisfied the requirement . .
CitedNilsen v United Kingdom ECHR 9-Mar-2010
The applicant had been convicted of the most serious offences including several violent murders, and was held under a whole life tarriff. He wished to publish his autobiography from prison.
Held: The application was inadmissible. He had . .
CitedBergens Tidende And Others v Norway ECHR 2-May-2000
A newspaper complained that its rights under Article 10 of the Convention had been infringed by a libel action which a cosmetic surgeon had successfully brought against it in respect of defamatory articles it had published saying he was incompetent. . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Media, Human Rights

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.450213

Becker v Home Office: CA 1972

Mrs. Becker had started an action as trustee when she was sent to prison for obtaining credit as a bankrupt. She applied to leave prison in order to conduct her case. The Home Secretary made a direction for her production under Section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961 subject to her prepayment of the costs. She left prison 9 times to conduct her proceedings and andpound;8.17 was deducted from monies held on her behalf. In these proceedings she sued, inter alia, for the return of that sum. The County Court had found for her. The Home Secretary appealed.
Held: The appeal succeeded. A breach of the prison rules does not, per se, give rise to a cause of action against the governor or Home Office. The Prison Rules are mere ‘regulatory directions’.
Lord Denning MR drew a distinction between impeding access to the courts and allowing a party to attend court.
Stephenson LJ said: ‘Under Section 29(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1961, the Secretary of State has a discretionary power to allow him or her out of the place where the sentence is being served, but not out of Custody unless he otherwise directs : Section 29(2). A condition necessary to the exercise of this discretion is that he should be satisfied that the prisoners attendance at another place is desirable in the interests of justice or for the purposes of any public inquiry. If and only if satisfied of that, he may direct the prisoner to be taken to that place. Those words are, I think limited by their context and their history to the desirability of the prisoner leaving prison for the purposes of conducting litigation as a party or of giving evidence in his own or another’s litigation, criminal or civil.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Edmund Davies, Stephenson LJJ

Citations:

[1972] 2 QB 407

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1961 29

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison, Ex parte Hague, Weldon v Home Office HL 24-Jul-1991
The prisoner challenged the decision to place him in segregation under Prison Rule 43. Under rule 43(1) the initial power to segregate was given to ‘the governor’. The case arose from the fact that the governor of one prison had purported to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.271095

Arbon v Anderson: 1943

The court was asked whether a cause of action arose from a breach of the Prison Rules 1933. Goddard LJ said: ‘With regard to the prison rules, it would be enough to say that there were no breaches, but, in case a higher court should take a different view, I should say that, in my opinion, neither do these rules confer rights on prisoners which can be enforced by action. They are made under the Prison Act 1898, section 2, for the ‘government of prisons’ .
The real question which falls to be determined is whether it is intended by the statute to confer an individual right. I am clearly of opinion that neither the Prison Act 1898, nor the rules were intended to confer any such right.’

Judges:

Goddard LJ

Citations:

[1943] KB 252

Statutes:

Prison Act 1898

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison, Ex parte Hague, Weldon v Home Office HL 24-Jul-1991
The prisoner challenged the decision to place him in segregation under Prison Rule 43. Under rule 43(1) the initial power to segregate was given to ‘the governor’. The case arose from the fact that the governor of one prison had purported to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.271096

Nilsen v HM Prison Full Sutton and Another: CA 17 Nov 2004

The prisoner, a notorious murderer had begun to write his autobiography. His solicitor wished to return a part manuscript to him in prison to be finished. The prison did not allow it, and the prisoner claimed infringement of his article 10 rights.
Held: Section 47 of the Act speaks not only of regulation and management of prisons but control of prisoners, and one legitimate aspect of a sentence of imprisonment is that it renders subject to control the exercise of the prisoner’s freedom to express himself to those who are outside the prison. ‘We do not believe that any penal system could readily contemplate a regime in which a rapist or a murderer would be permitted to publish an article glorifying in the pleasure that his crime had caused him. English jurisprudence suggests that to restrict prisoners from publishing such matter is a legitimate exercise of the power conferred on the Secretary of State by the Prison Act. ‘

Judges:

Mr Justice Gage, Lord Justice Kennedy, Lord Phillips Master Of The Rolls

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1540, Times 23-Nov-2004, [2005] 1 WLR 1028

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights, Prison Rules 1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRaymond v Honey HL 4-Mar-1981
The defendant prison governor had intercepted a prisoner’s letter to the Crown Office for the purpose of raising proceedings to have the governor committed for an alleged contempt of court.
Held: The governor was in contempt of court. Subject . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State Home Department, ex parte Leech (No 2) CA 20-May-1993
Prison rules were ultra vires in so far as they provided for reading letters between prisoners and their legal advisers. Every citizen has a right of unimpeded access to the court. A prisoner’s unimpeded access to a solicitor for the purpose of . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Mellor CA 4-Apr-2001
A prisoner had no right to facilities to artificially inseminate his wife. In this case, he might not be released for several years, and there were no medical reasons advanced for finding exceptional reasons under the Department policy. Provided the . .
CitedBamber v United Kingdom ECHR 11-Sep-1997
The Commission declared inadmissible a complaint that Standing Order 5 G 2B infringed Article 10. The Order precluded prisoners from contacting the media by telephone except in exceptional circumstances. The Standing Order satisfied the requirement . .
CitedHirst v The United Kingdom (No. 2) ECHR 30-Mar-2004
(Commission) The prisoner alleged that the denial of his right to vote whilst in prison was disproportionate. He was serving a life sentence for manslaughter.
Held: The denial of a right to vote was in infringement of his rights and . .
CitedSilver And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Mar-1983
There had been interference with prisoners’ letters by prison authorities. The Commission considered Standing Orders and Circular Instructions in relation to restrictions on correspondence. The rules were not available to prisoners and were . .
Appeal fromNilsen, Regina (on the Application of) v Governor of HMP Full Sutton and Another Admn 19-Dec-2003
The prisoner complained that having written an autobiography, the manuscript materials had been withheld, and that this interfered with his rights of freedom of expression.
Held: Such an action by the prison authorities was not incompatible . .

Cited by:

Appealed toNilsen, Regina (on the Application of) v Governor of HMP Full Sutton and Another Admn 19-Dec-2003
The prisoner complained that having written an autobiography, the manuscript materials had been withheld, and that this interfered with his rights of freedom of expression.
Held: Such an action by the prison authorities was not incompatible . .
CitedO’Dowd (Boy George) v National Probation Service London Admn 23-Dec-2009
Refusal of curfew relaxation was reasonable
The claimant had been released from prison early on licence subject to conditions including a home detention curfew. He was offered a place on a TV programme, Celebrity Big Brother, which would require relaxation or alteration of his place of . .
CitedO’Dowd (Boy George) v National Probation Service London Admn 23-Dec-2009
Refusal of curfew relaxation was reasonable
The claimant had been released from prison early on licence subject to conditions including a home detention curfew. He was offered a place on a TV programme, Celebrity Big Brother, which would require relaxation or alteration of his place of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights, Media

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.219479

Campbell v The United Kingdom: ECHR 25 Mar 1992

The applicant complained about the compatibility with the European Convention of the Prisons rule 74(4) which provided that ‘every letter to or from a prisoner shall be read by the Governor . . and it shall be within the discretion of the Governor to stop any letter if he considers that the contents are objectionable.’
Held: The interference with the applicant’s correspondence violated article 8. ‘Admittedly, as the Government pointed out, the borderline between mail concerning contemplated litigation and that of a general nature is especially difficult to draw and correspondence with a lawyer may concern matters which have little or nothing to do with litigation. Nevertheless, the Court sees no reason to distinguish between the different categories of correspondence with lawyers which, whatever their purpose, concern matters of a private and confidential character. In principle, such letters are privileged under Article 8. This means that the prison authorities may open a letter from a lawyer to a prisoner when they have reasonable cause to believe that it contains an illicit enclosure which the normal means of detection have failed to disclose. The letter should, however, only be opened and should not be read. Suitable guarantees preventing the reading of the letter should be provided, eg opening the letter in the presence of the prisoner. The reading of a prisoner’s mail to and from a lawyer, on the other hand, should only be permitted in exceptional circumstances when the authorities have reasonable cause to believe that the privilege is being abused in that the contents of the letter endanger prison security or the safety of others or are otherwise of a criminal nature. What may be regarded as ‘reasonable cause’ will depend on all the circumstances but it presupposes the existence of facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the privileged channel of communication was being abused.’

Citations:

13590/88, (1992) 15 EHRR 137, [1992] ECHR 41

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

Prison (Scotland) Rules 1952 (SI 1952/565) 74(4), European Convention on Human Rights 8

Citing:

CitedLeech v Secretary of State for Scotland SCS 1991
The rule which allowed the prisons to read correspondence between an inmate and his legal adviser if legal proceedings had not yet been commenced was upheld as valid. . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Special Commissioner And Another, ex parte Morgan Grenfell and Co Ltd HL 16-May-2002
The inspector issued a notice requiring production of certain documents. The respondents refused to produce them, saying that they were protected by legal professional privilege.
Held: Legal professional privilege is a fundamental part of . .
CitedRegina (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 . .
AppliedRegina v Secretary of State Home Department, ex parte Leech (No 2) CA 20-May-1993
Prison rules were ultra vires in so far as they provided for reading letters between prisoners and their legal advisers. Every citizen has a right of unimpeded access to the court. A prisoner’s unimpeded access to a solicitor for the purpose of . .
CitedRegina (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 . .
CitedBowman v Fels (Bar Council and Others intervening) CA 8-Mar-2005
The parties had lived together in a house owned in the defendant’s name and in which she claimed an interest. The claimant’s solicitors notified NCIS that they thought the defendant had acted illegally in setting off against his VAT liability the . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
CitedPrudential Plc and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and Another SC 23-Jan-2013
The appellants resisted disclosure to the revenue of advice it had received. It claimed legal advice privilege (LAP), though the advice was from its accountants.
Held: (Lords Sumption and Clarke dissenting) LAP applies to all communications . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons, Scotland

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.165195

Nilsen, Regina (on the Application of) v Governor of HMP Full Sutton and Another: Admn 19 Dec 2003

The prisoner complained that having written an autobiography, the manuscript materials had been withheld, and that this interfered with his rights of freedom of expression.
Held: Such an action by the prison authorities was not incompatible with the prisoner’s rights. The materials were not privileged, but were intended for publication contrary to the standing orders. A restriction on freedom of speech had to be necessary in pursuance of a pressing social need, and that connoted something beyond ‘useful, reasonable or desirable’ The elements supported by the rules were not limited to good order and discipline within the prison system. There was no special position enjoyed by an autobiography over other works. The respondent had clearly carried out a proportionality assessment, and the response was proportional and rational. Despite the existence of other copies it was not futile to seek still to control futher dissemination of this material.

Judges:

Maurice Kay, J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 3160 (Admin), Times 02-Jan-2004, [2004] EMLR 9

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 10, Prison Act 1952 47(1), Prisons Rules 1999 (1999 No 728)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
CitedNilsen and Johnsen v Norway ECHR 25-Nov-1999
The court considered a complaint that the Norwegian defamation law interfered with the applicant’s freedom of speech, and placed an unfair burden of proof on them in defending themselves. One of the defamatory phrases under consideration was . .
CitedHandyside v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Dec-1976
Freedom of Expression is Fundamental to Society
The appellant had published a ‘Little Red Schoolbook’. He was convicted under the 1959 and 1964 Acts on the basis that the book was obscene, it tending to deprave and corrupt its target audience, children. The book claimed that it was intended to . .
CitedRaymond v Honey HL 4-Mar-1981
The defendant prison governor had intercepted a prisoner’s letter to the Crown Office for the purpose of raising proceedings to have the governor committed for an alleged contempt of court.
Held: The governor was in contempt of court. Subject . .
CitedRefah Partisi (The Welfare Party) and Others v Turkey ECHR 13-Feb-2003
Hudoc No violation of Art. 11 ; Not necessary to examine under Arts. 9, 10, 14, 17 and 18 41340/98 ; 41342/98 ; 41343/98 ; 41344/98
‘ . . ..the expression ‘prescribed by law’ requires first that the impugned . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Mellor CA 4-Apr-2001
A prisoner had no right to facilities to artificially inseminate his wife. In this case, he might not be released for several years, and there were no medical reasons advanced for finding exceptional reasons under the Department policy. Provided the . .
CitedHirst v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 22-Mar-2002
The applicant, a prisoner challenged the uniform ban on contact by prisoners with the media by telephone, arguing that it infringed his Article 10 rights.
Held: Restricting telephone contact with the media was not part of imprisonment. A . .
CitedSecretary of State for the Home Department v Central Broadcasting Limited 1993
The applicant sought to restrain transmission of material involving the notorious murderer Nilsen.
Held: ‘The broadcasting of an interview with Dennis Nilsen carries with it to all the dangers which the Home Office policy is designed to guard . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department (ex parte Bamber) Admn 24-Apr-1998
The applicant was refused leave to apply for judicial review of a decision as to his release made on the basis of his refusal to accept his guilt. . .
CitedRegina (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 . .
CitedRegina v British Broadcasting Corporation ex parte Pro-life Alliance HL 15-May-2003
The Alliance was a political party seeking to air its party election broadcast. The appellant broadcasters declined to broadcast the film on the grounds that it was offensive, being a graphical discussion of the processes of abortion.
Held: . .
Appealed toNilsen v HM Prison Full Sutton and Another CA 17-Nov-2004
The prisoner, a notorious murderer had begun to write his autobiography. His solicitor wished to return a part manuscript to him in prison to be finished. The prison did not allow it, and the prisoner claimed infringement of his article 10 rights. . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromNilsen v HM Prison Full Sutton and Another CA 17-Nov-2004
The prisoner, a notorious murderer had begun to write his autobiography. His solicitor wished to return a part manuscript to him in prison to be finished. The prison did not allow it, and the prisoner claimed infringement of his article 10 rights. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Media, Human Rights

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.189147

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 rights to a fairtrial were not engaged.
Held: The prisoner’s appeal was dismissed. The prisoner’s continued detention was determined by the issue of the safety of the public on his release once te determinate part of his sentence was complete. The rules might benefit from clarification. The applicant’s rights to a fair trial at common law were not higher than those granted by t heconvention.

Judges:

Sir Mark Potter P, keane LJ, Scott Baker LJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1009, Times 30-Aug-2005, [2005] HRLR 1220, [2005] 2 Prison LR 253

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prison Rules 1999 (1999 No 728) 51, European Convention on Human Rights 86

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedTaylor v Lancashire County Council and others CA 17-Mar-2005
The tenant occupied his farm under a lease limiting his use of the farm. He was found to be trading in breach of his covenant and a notice to quit was issued and possession sought. He argued that the 1986 Act was discriminatory and inadequate to . .
CitedEngel And Others v The Netherlands (1) ECHR 8-Jun-1976
The court was asked whether proceedings in a military court against soldiers for disciplinary offences involved criminal charges within the meaning of Article 6(1): ‘In this connection, it is first necessary to know whether the provision(s) defining . .
CitedGhaidan v Godin-Mendoza CA 5-Nov-2002
The applicant sought to succeed to the tenancy of his deceased homosexual partner as his partner rather than as a member of his family.
Held: A court is bound by any decision within the normal hierachy of domestic authority as to the meaning . .
CitedCampbell and Fell v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-Jun-1984
Campbell and others had been involved in conduct within the prison leading to charges against them of mutiny and of striking an officer with a broom handle. The nature of the conduct in question was plainly susceptible of giving rise to criminal . .
CitedEzeh 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 . .
CitedNorris v Ireland ECHR 26-Oct-1988
A homosexual man complained that the criminalisation of homosexual conduct in Ireland violated his article 8 right to respect for his private life, although he accepted that the risk of being prosecuted was remote.
Held: The court accepted . .
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedHammond, 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 . .
CitedNapier 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 . .
CitedRegina v Carroll and Al-Hasan and Secretary of State for Home Department CA 19-Jul-2001
Two appellants were prisoners at a high security prison. A search involved the prisoner squatting so that items which might be hidden in their genital or anal areas could be seen. The appellants refused to squat. Both were charged with refusing to . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
CitedLloyd v McMahon HL 12-Mar-1987
The district auditor had issued a certificate under the 1982 Act surcharging the appellant councillors in the sum of 106,103, pounds being the amount of a loss incurred or deficiency caused, as the auditor found, by their wilful misconduct.

Cited by:

CitedShreeve, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 26-Oct-2007
The prisoner as a buddhist was entitled to have in his cell an incense burner. He was accused of having a sharpened object. It was in the shape of a lotus leaf. No evidence was brought that the claimant had sharpened the object.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.229211

Silver v United Kingdom: ECHR 1980

(Commission) Complaint was made as to the censorship of prisoners’ correspondence. The censorship of prisoners’ correspondence was ancillary to prison rules restricting the contents of correspondence. The Commission, therefore, and the Court had to consider what restraints upon the content of correspondence were permissible.
Held: Communications making representations about the prisoner’s trial, conviction or sentence whether to the Home Secretary or others should in principle not be prevented. Although there was a statutory right to have recourse to the Home Secretary and it was he who had the statutory power and responsibility to refer cases back to the Court of Appeal, it was not justifiable to confine such communications to him. As regards letters attempting to stimulate public agitation or petition, the Commission again recognised the needs of good order and discipline and the fact that public agitation rather than recourse to legal remedies might undermine the rule of law, but it also accepted as conceivable that: ‘to avoid or expose injustice, matters relating, for example, to a prisoner’s trial, conviction or sentence, or to prison conditions, in general or in a particular case should be brought to the public’s attention if necessary by way of petition-raising.’ A blanket prohibition upon such communications was an over broad restriction. The Commission considered that the applicant’s ‘attempts to clear his name were a legitimate and reasonable exercise of his rights, which had not been shown to have posed any threat to prison good order.’

Citations:

(1980) 3 EHRR 475

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
CitedRegina v Ashworth Hospital Authority (Now Mersey Care National Health Service Trust) ex parte Munjaz HL 13-Oct-2005
The claimant was detained in a secure Mental Hospital. He complained at the seclusions policy applied by the hospital, saying that it departed from the Guidance issued for such policies by the Secretary of State under the Act.
Held: The House . .
CitedLaporte, Regina (on the application of ) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire HL 13-Dec-2006
The claimants had been in coaches being driven to take part in a demonstration at an air base. The defendant police officers stopped the coaches en route, and, without allowing any number of the claimants to get off, returned the coaches to London. . .
CitedMosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 24-Jul-2008
The defendant published a film showing the claimant involved in sex acts with prostitutes. It characterised them as ‘Nazi’ style. He was the son of a fascist leader, and a chairman of an international sporting body. He denied any nazi element, and . .
At CommissionSilver And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Mar-1983
There had been interference with prisoners’ letters by prison authorities. The Commission considered Standing Orders and Circular Instructions in relation to restrictions on correspondence. The rules were not available to prisoners and were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.230249

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Simms; ex parte O’Brien; ex parte Main: CA 9 Dec 1997

The removal of a prisoner’s right to talk to the press is part of the process of imprisonment. Prisoners’ letters could be read to the extent necessary to prove that they contained legally privileged material. A prisoner has no right to an oral interview (as opposed to correspondence) with a journalist who was willing to investigate his case and, if appropriate, to take up his case through the media.
Judge LJ said: ‘the starting point is to assume that a civil right is preserved unless it has been expressly removed or its loss is an inevitable consequence of lawful detention in custody.’ and ‘If he is visiting as a professional journalist, or intending to use the material obtained at interview in a professional capacity, it is difficult to accept that the limitation on the entitlement of the journalist to publish the contents of his communications with the prisoner infringes the prisoner’s right of free expression, at any rate in any way which significantly increases the inevitable interference with that right which follows incarceration. As the prisoner’s ability to communicate with journalists both orally and in writing is preserved, what in reality is at stake is the relationship between the journalist and those responsible for the secure administration of the prison. The potential for increased problems with security and discipline, staff, other inmates, and after conviction, with victims or their families, all underline the need for control of such visits to be vested in and exercised by the governor. This is what the regulatory framework is intended to achieve and in the circumstances I have concluded that the restriction currently under consideration is not ultra vires.’
Kennedy LJ: ‘In my judgment a convicted prisoner has no right to communicate orally with the media through a journalist. The loss of that ‘right,’ if it can properly be so described, is part and parcel a sentence of imprisonment. . . . I would therefore reject the vires argument which found favour with the judge and allow the appeal. Insofar as Mr. Owen sought to contend that the requirement of a written undertaking was and is irrational, disproportionate or otherwise unjustifiable, I would reject that submission, . . .’

Judges:

Judge LJ, Kennedy LJ, Chadwick LJ

Citations:

Gazette 08-Jan-1998, Times 09-Dec-1997, [1999] QB 349

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Ian Simms and Michael Alan Mark O’Brien QBD 19-Dec-1996
A full restriction on the use of material emanating from a prison visit was unlawful as an interference with the right of free speech of the prisoner: ‘The blanket prohibition on making use of material obtained in a visit is not, on the evidence . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
CitedKelly (A Minor) v British Broadcasting Corporation FD 25-Jul-2000
K, aged 16, had left home to join what was said to be a religious sect. His whereabouts were unknown. He had been made a ward of court and the Official Solicitor was appointed to represent his interests. He had sent messages to say that he was well . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.87908

Regina v Carroll and Al-Hasan and Secretary of State for Home Department: Admn 16 Feb 2001

The claimants challenged the instruction that they must squat whilst undergoing a strip search in prison. A dog search had given cause to supect the presence of explosives in the wing, and the officers understood that such explosives might be hidden anally.
Held: The common thread in all the cases has been the search to find whether an objective need for the intrusion or interference with prisoners has been made out. ‘the questions and issues in relation to security and the management of prisons as presented by the Secretary of State cannot be regarded as irrational or incapable of providing substantial objective justification for squat searches without a prisoner being informed of the substance of the reason for the search.’ It is appropriate to accord to the Secretary of State a measure of deference in balancing circumstances and in determining what is required.

Judges:

Newman J

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 110

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedHinds and other v The Queen; Director of Public Prosecutions v Jackson, attorney General of Jamaica (Intervenor) PC 1-Dec-1975
The Gun Court Act 1974 of Jamaica established special courts at different levels to deal with varieties of crimes involving guns. There was provision for hearings to be held in camera. Certain offences carried mandatory life sentences reviewable . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
CitedLindley v Rutter CA 1981
The defendant had been taken into police custody upon arrest for disorderly behaviour. Police officers, acting in accordance with what they believed to be standing orders to search every female prisoner, in the face of a refusal by the defendant to . .
CitedRaymond v Honey HL 4-Mar-1981
The defendant prison governor had intercepted a prisoner’s letter to the Crown Office for the purpose of raising proceedings to have the governor committed for an alleged contempt of court.
Held: The governor was in contempt of court. Subject . .
CitedRegina v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison, Ex parte Hague, Weldon v Home Office HL 24-Jul-1991
The prisoner challenged the decision to place him in segregation under Prison Rule 43. Under rule 43(1) the initial power to segregate was given to ‘the governor’. The case arose from the fact that the governor of one prison had purported to . .
CitedMcFeeley and others v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-May-1980
(Commission) The claimants had been convicted of terrorist-type offences in Northern Ireland and were serving prisoners in HMP The Maze. They protested at a change of regime imposed in 1976, resulting in them not being permitted association with the . .
CitedRe Baker and other Applicants QBNI 1992
The court considered the meaning of the Prisons Rules, and the ability of a governor to order searches of prisoners: ‘the power conferred by Rule 9(1) is intended to be an unqualified power, and the governor is entitled to order a prisoner to be . .
CitedWeatherall v Canada 1988
(Canada) One of the limitations on a prisoner’s rights arising out of his conviction and imprisonment was his subjection to searches necessary for the security and good order of the prison: ‘Nevertheless, such searches should be subject to some . .
CitedSoenen v Director of Edmonton Remand Centre 1983
(Canada) A remand prisoner complained about rectal searches: ‘The applicant’s third complaint is that sometimes members of the Detention Centre staff, who were searching for such things as forks, knives, or other objects, require the inmates who are . .
CitedRegina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others HL 28-Oct-1999
(Orse Kebeline) The DPP’s appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for . .
CitedRegina v Gough (Robert) HL 1993
The defendant had been convicted of robbery. He appealed, saying that a member of the jury was a neighbour to his brother, and there was therefore a risk of bias. This was of particular significance as the defendant was charged with conspiracy with . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Mahmood CA 8-Dec-2000
A Pakistani citizen entered the UK illegally and claimed asylum. A week before his claim was refused and he was served with removal directions, he married a British citizen of Pakistani origin. Two children were later born.
Held: Only . .
CitedRegina v Liverpool City Justices ex parte Topping 1983
When the Applicant appeared before the Justices, his solicitor submitted that the Justices should acknowledge that they were aware that in addition to the matter which they were about to try (that is to say an offence of criminal damage against a . .
CitedRegina v Board of Visitors ex parte Lewis 1986
. .
CitedRegina v The Board of Visitors of HMP The Maze ex parte Hone and McCartan 1988
The question whether a prisoner or young offender is entitled to legal representation at an internal prison adjudication is one for the discretion of the relevant authority. . .
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedIn Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No 2); Director General of Fair Trading v Proprietary Association of Great Britain and Proprietary Articles Trade Association CA 21-Dec-2000
The claimants alleged that a connection between a member of the Restrictive Practices Court, who was to hear a complaint and another company, disclosed bias against them. She had not recused herself.
Held: When asking whether material . .
CitedRegina v HM Prison Service ex parte Hibbert Admn 16-Jan-1997
The general contention that the governor, being part of the prison administration and privy to the decision, could not conduct an adjudication within th eprison was not ‘something outside the normal situation, which could justify intervention in . .
CitedRegina v Chief Constable of the Thames Valley Police, Ex parte Cotton CA 1990
The Chief Constable’s power to dispense with a probationer’s services under Condition 7 is only exercisable in cases where the probationer constable’s unfitness does not arise from alleged misconduct, for example where it arises from the constable’s . .
CitedRegina v The Joint Committee on Surgical Training ex parte Milner Admn 4-May-1994
The court rejected the applicant’s complaint about the non-disclosure of his tutors’ reports upon his surgical abilities on the footing that he ‘has not demonstrated that the evidence on which the [advisory committee] relied is amenable to any . .
CitedPakelli v Germany ECHR 25-Apr-1983
A person charged with a criminal offence who does not wish to defend himself in person, must be able to have recourse to legal assistance of his own choosing. . .
CitedCampbell and Fell v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-Jun-1984
Campbell and others had been involved in conduct within the prison leading to charges against them of mutiny and of striking an officer with a broom handle. The nature of the conduct in question was plainly susceptible of giving rise to criminal . .
CitedEngel And Others v The Netherlands (1) ECHR 8-Jun-1976
The court was asked whether proceedings in a military court against soldiers for disciplinary offences involved criminal charges within the meaning of Article 6(1): ‘In this connection, it is first necessary to know whether the provision(s) defining . .
CitedRegina v Board of Visitors of Hull Prison, Ex parte St Germain (No 2) CA 1979
Proper Limits on Imprisonment
The court discussed the proper limits of imprisonment: ‘despite the deprivation of his general liberty, a prisoner remains invested with residuary rights appertaining to the nature and conduct of his incarceration . . An essential characteristic of . .
CitedO’Reilly v Mackman HL 1982
Remission of Sentence is a Privilege not a Right
The plaintiffs had begun their action, to challenge their loss of remission as prisoners, by means of a writ, rather than by an action for judicial review, and so had sidestepped the requirement for the action to be brought within strict time . .
CitedOzturk v Germany ECHR 21-Feb-1984
A minor infringement may be the subject of a criminal charge: ‘If the Contracting States were able at their discretion, by classifying an offence as ‘regulatory’ instead of criminal, to exclude the operation of the fundamental clauses of Articles 6 . .
Appealed toRegina v Carroll and Al-Hasan and Secretary of State for Home Department CA 19-Jul-2001
Two appellants were prisoners at a high security prison. A search involved the prisoner squatting so that items which might be hidden in their genital or anal areas could be seen. The appellants refused to squat. Both were charged with refusing to . .
CitedChristie 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 by:

Appeal FromRegina v Carroll and Al-Hasan and Secretary of State for Home Department CA 19-Jul-2001
Two appellants were prisoners at a high security prison. A search involved the prisoner squatting so that items which might be hidden in their genital or anal areas could be seen. The appellants refused to squat. Both were charged with refusing to . .
First InstanceAl-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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Torts – Other

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.140278

Regina (Carman) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: QBD 30 Jul 2004

The prisoner sought to challenge the terms set for his release on licence.
Held: in this case there were exceptional circumstances to justify an alteration in the terms. The board had not given regard to the actual matters for which the prisoner had been sentenced. However the court made it clear that such challenges should normally be resisted by the courts save in such exceptional cases.

Judges:

Moses J

Citations:

Times 11-Oct-2004

Prisons

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.216375

Mason v Ministry of Justice: QBD 28 Jul 2008

The court considered whether the system of home detention was capable of amounting to a detention.
Held: The home detention curfew system satisfied the requirements of Article 5.

Judges:

Cranston J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1787 (QB), [2009] 1 All ER 1128, [2009] 1 WLR 509

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.271311

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Anderson: QBD 1984

A prisoner challenged a standing order which restricted visits by his legal adviser as he contemplated proceedings concerning his treatment in prison when he had not at the same time made any complaint to the prison authorities internally.
Held: The standing order was ultra vires. The court reiterated the principle that a prisoner retains all civil rights which are not taken away expressly or by necessary implication: ‘At the forefront of those civil rights is the right of unimpeded access to the courts; and the right of access to a solicitor to obtain advice and assistance with regard to the initiation of civil proceedings is inseparable from the right of access to the courts themselves.’ and ‘As it seems to us, a requirement that an inmate should make . . . a complaint as a prerequisite of his having access to his solicitor, however desirable it may be in the interests of good administration, goes beyond the regulation of the circumstances in which such access may take place, and does indeed constitute an impediment to his right of access to the civil court.’

Judges:

Robert Goff LJ

Citations:

[1984] QB 778

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina (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.

Prisons

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.190127

Regina v Governor of Whitemoor Prison, Ex parte Main: QBD 1999

The court considered whether prison staff should be able to read letters between a prisoner and his legal advisers before proceedings were actually commenced.
Held: The policy represented the minimum intrusion into the rights of prisoners consistent with the need to maintain security, order and discipline in prisons. Kennedy LJ ‘In my judgment legal professional privilege does attach to correspondence with legal advisers which is stored by a prisoner in his cell, and accordingly such correspondence is to be protected from any unnecessary interference by prison staff. Even if the correspondence is only inspected to see that it is what it purports to be that is likely to impair the free flow of communication between a convicted or remand prisoner on the one hand and his legal adviser on the other, and therefore it constitutes an impairment of the privilege.’ Judge LJ ‘Prisoners whose cells are searched in their absence will find it difficult to believe that their correspondence has been searched but not read. The governor’s order will sometimes be disobeyed. Accordingly I am prepared to accept the potential ‘chilling effect’ of such searches.’

Judges:

Kennedy LJ, Judge LJ

Citations:

[1999] QB 349

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See alsoRegina v Governor of HM Prison Whitemoor ex parte Main Admn 17-Feb-1997
. .

Cited by:

See AlsoRegina v Governor of HM Prison Whitemoor ex parte Main Admn 17-Feb-1997
. .
CitedRegina (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.

Prisons, Legal Professions

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.190129

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Pegg: QBD 9 Aug 1994

The procedures for assessing lifer release questions are unfair. A higher standard is required of decision makers. The parole board should give reasons for a refusal to release where exemplary reports had been submitted on behalf of the prisoner.

Citations:

Independent 09-Aug-1994, Times 11-Aug-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.87892

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Ian Simms and Michael Alan Mark O’Brien: QBD 19 Dec 1996

A full restriction on the use of material emanating from a prison visit was unlawful as an interference with the right of free speech of the prisoner: ‘The blanket prohibition on making use of material obtained in a visit is not, on the evidence before me, therefore justified as the minimum interference necessary with the right of free speech to meet the statutory objectives.’ However the court upheld the need to regulate access by professional journalists acting as such to prisons and prisoners: ‘There is no doubt that restrictions on visits are necessary for the proper regulation and management of prisons, and for the treatment, discipline and control of inmates. It seems to me to be entirely proper that the primary restriction should be that the only visitors should be family and friends. This accords with the general and beneficial policy to ensure that, so far as possible, an inmate retains his family and social connections. Beyond those categories there has to be some justification, it seems to me, for a visit, in order to ensure that access to inmates is not exploited for purposes which could be inimical to proper management of and discipline within prisons.’ and ‘I consider that a restriction preventing an inmate from communicating orally with the media in a visit unless the representative of the media gives an undertaking not to use the material obtained at that visit is a restriction on the right of free speech. . . . The test is whether or not the restriction is necessary in order to achieve the statutory objectives. In the present context, these objectives include the need to keep visits within sensible bounds for the ordinary management of the prison, and the discipline and control of inmates. This clearly entitles rules to be made which preclude access to the media, in any form, merely for the purposes of purveying general complaints, tittle tattle or other material which may be mischievous or offensive. In particular, as was recognised in Bamber, proper discipline and control includes consideration of the effect of inmates’ activities on others. I am therefore quite satisfied that Rule 33(1) is lawful in including ‘the interests of any persons’ as a material consideration when deciding what restrictions are appropriate on communications between inmates and others. It follows, in my view, that the prohibition on communicating with the media by letter save where the inmate is making serious representations about his or her conviction or sentence. or is otherwise part of a serious comment about crime, the processes of justice or the penal system, meets the Leech test of being the minimum interference necessary to achieve the statutory objectives.’

Judges:

Latham J

Citations:

Times 17-Jan-1997, [1996] EWHC Admin 388

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prison Act 1952 47, European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Secretary of State Home Department, ex parte Leech (No 2) CA 20-May-1993
Prison rules were ultra vires in so far as they provided for reading letters between prisoners and their legal advisers. Every citizen has a right of unimpeded access to the court. A prisoner’s unimpeded access to a solicitor for the purpose of . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Simms; ex parte O’Brien; ex parte Main CA 9-Dec-1997
The removal of a prisoner’s right to talk to the press is part of the process of imprisonment. Prisoners’ letters could be read to the extent necessary to prove that they contained legally privileged material. A prisoner has no right to an oral . .
At first instanceRegina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.87906

Regina (Nathan Brookes) v Secretary of State for Justice: Admn 2008

At least a minimum standard of health care was to be provided to those held in prisons.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 3041 (Admin)

Cited by:

CitedRegina 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.

Prisons

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.470866

Miller v The Queen: 1985

(Canadian Supreme Court) In a case of a prisoner where solitary confinement is unlawfully and unjustly superimposed upon his prison sentence the added solitary confinement can amount to ‘prison within a prison’: it is capable of constituting a material deprivation of residual liberty.

Citations:

(1985) 24 DLR (4th) 9

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Ashworth Hospital Authority (Now Mersey Care National Health Service Trust) ex parte Munjaz HL 13-Oct-2005
The claimant was detained in a secure Mental Hospital. He complained at the seclusions policy applied by the hospital, saying that it departed from the Guidance issued for such policies by the Secretary of State under the Act.
Held: The House . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.231112

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 the 1983 Act. An internal prison report which contained the substantial record of the events and was critical of the Prisons Department was entirely lost by the department.
Held: No one method of investigation could apply in all cases, but there was a duty on the state to carry out a proper investigation. An investigation was proposed by the Prisons’ Ombudsman. Civil proceedings in negligence were also contemplated, but that was either entirely or very substantially irrelevant. The investigation proposed by the Ombudsman would not satisfy the requirements. It would not be in public, and witnesses would not be compellable. The claimants’ representatives would not attend any witness interview or be able to question them, and some statements would not be availble to them. Had D been cut down only seconds later he might have died an an inquest been held. The investigation should be in public, and witnesses compellable even if they had left the prisons service.

Judges:

Munby J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 728 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedSalman v Turkey ECHR 27-Jun-2000
Where someone dies or is injured whilst in custody the burden is on the state to provide a ‘satisfactory and convincing explanation’ of what has happened: ‘Persons in custody are in a vulnerable position and the authorities are under a duty to . .
CitedMiddleton, 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.
CitedAmin, 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 . .
CitedRegina (Howard League for Penal Reform) v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 29-Nov-2002
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 . .
CitedRegina (Wright) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 2001
A serving prisoner suffered a severe asthmatic attack in his cell and died. An inquest was held at which the family of the deceased were present, but unrepresented for want of legal aid. There was no inquiry into the quality of the medical treatment . .
CitedEdwards 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 . .
CitedJordan v United Kingdom; McKerr v United Kingdom; similar ECHR 4-May-2001
Proper Investigation of Deaths with Army or Police
Claims were made as regards deaths of alleged terrorists in clashes with the UK armed forces and police. In some cases the investigations necessary to justify the taking of life had been inadequate. Statements made to the inquiry as to the . .
CitedCalvelli and Ciglio v Italy ECHR 17-Jan-2002
The applicants’ baby had died shortly after birth in 1987. They complained about the medical care. The complaint was not investigated speedily by the authority, resulting in a criminal complaint becoming time barred after a conviction in 1994 was . .
CitedGoodson v HM Coroner for Bedfordshire and Luton Admn 17-Dec-2004
A patient had died in hospital following an operation. The NHS Trust submitted that ‘There is a real distinction between cases of medical negligence, which were specifically addressed as a discrete area in Calvelli, and cases of intentional killing . .
CitedGoodson v HM Coroner for Bedfordshire and Luton Admn 17-Dec-2004
A patient had died in hospital following an operation. The NHS Trust submitted that ‘There is a real distinction between cases of medical negligence, which were specifically addressed as a discrete area in Calvelli, and cases of intentional killing . .
CitedOneryildiz v Turkey ECHR 30-Nov-2004
(Grand Chamber) The applicant had lived with his family in a slum bordering on a municipal household refuse tip. A methane explosion at the tip resulted in a landslide which engulfed the applicant’s house killing his close relatives.
Held: The . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromD, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Inquest Intervening) CA 28-Feb-2006
The respondent appealed from orders made as to the conduct of an investigation into an attempted suicide in prison. The judge had severely criticised the appellant’s treatment of the case.
Held: The appeal failed. The court recited the . .
CitedJL, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice; Regina (L (A Patient)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 26-Nov-2008
The prisoner was left with serious injury after attempting suicide in prison. He said that there was a human rights duty to hold an investigation into the circumstances leading up to this.
Held: There existed a similar duty to hold an enhanced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.224485

Regina v Board of Visitors of Frankland Prison, Ex parte Lewis: 1986

Given the role of the Board in discipline within a prison, it can assist the achievement of justice in disciplinary proceedings for the adjudicator to have knowledge of the workings of a particular prison.

Citations:

[1986] 1 WLR 130

Cited by:

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

Prisons

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.222967

Regina v Deputy Governor of Camphill Prison, Ex parte King: 1985

The governor’s role in maintaining good order and discipline within the prison was part of his overall function of managing the prison, and is not susceptible to judicial review. ‘Management without discipline is a recipe for chaos.’

Judges:

Lawton LJ

Citations:

[1985] 1 QB 735

Cited by:

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

Prisons

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.222929

Re McKiernan’s Application: 1985

The court found difficulty in drawing a logical distinction between the disciplinary functions of governors and Boards of Visitors.

Citations:

[1985] NI 385

Cited by:

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

Northern Ireland, Prisons

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.222930

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 Commission found no evidence of different treatment, but did say that where procedures relating to the release of prisoners appear to operate in a discriminatory manner: ‘The Commission has held that this may raise issues under Article 5 in conjunction with Article 14’.

Citations:

22564/93

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5 14

Cited by:

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

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.220031

Soenen v Director of Edmonton Remand Centre: 1983

(Canada) A remand prisoner complained about rectal searches: ‘The applicant’s third complaint is that sometimes members of the Detention Centre staff, who were searching for such things as forks, knives, or other objects, require the inmates who are sitting around their common area described above, to strip naked and bend over so that there may be a visual examination of the rectal area. The applicant recognises that strip searches are essential, but he contends the manner in which they are performed is humiliating, degrading and immoral, and constitutes a serious intrusion of privacy. He contends that before such a visual rectal examination takes place, there should be a reasonable suspicion of anal concealment of some item. Moreover, he contends, each individual inmate should be inspected privately so that he is not humiliated by being inspected in the presence of 23 other men.’
Held: ‘I find that this practice cannot be said to be cruel treatment, even assuming it is unusual, nor does it constitute an unreasonable search that would infringe Section 8 of the Charter. In my view a visual search of the rectum of a person just arrested, in the absence of reasonable and probable cause to believe that an object has been concealed anally, might be unreasonable and the violation of a reasonable expectation of privacy; but such a search is not unreasonable and is not a violation of a reasonable expectation of privacy in the case of a pre-trial detainee in a detention facility, provided that the visual search is conducted bona fide in a search for weapons or contraband and not for the purpose of punishment. Such searches may be in the absence of reasonable, probable cause to believe that the prisoner being searched has concealed an object in his body cavity.’

Citations:

(1983) 35 CR (3d) 206

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Carroll and Al-Hasan and Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 16-Feb-2001
The claimants challenged the instruction that they must squat whilst undergoing a strip search in prison. A dog search had given cause to supect the presence of explosives in the wing, and the officers understood that such explosives might be hidden . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons, Commonwealth

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.211431

Regina (on the application of R) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: QBD 12 Dec 2003

The decision to designate a prisoner with mental difficulties as a ‘technical lifer’ was not a sentencing exercise requiring a right for the issue to be heard before a court, and it remained a decision for the respondent.

Judges:

Munby J

Citations:

Times 09-Jan-2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Health, Prisons

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.190499

Leech v Secretary of State for Scotland: SCS 1991

The rule which allowed the prisons to read correspondence between an inmate and his legal adviser if legal proceedings had not yet been commenced was upheld as valid.

Citations:

1991 SLT 910

Statutes:

Prison (Scotland) Rules 1952 (SI 1952/565) 74(4)

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

CitedCampbell v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Mar-1992
The applicant complained about the compatibility with the European Convention of the Prisons rule 74(4) which provided that ‘every letter to or from a prisoner shall be read by the Governor . . and it shall be within the discretion of the Governor . .
CitedWatkins 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.190128

Secretary of State for the Home Department v Central Broadcasting Limited: 1993

The applicant sought to restrain transmission of material involving the notorious murderer Nilsen.
Held: ‘The broadcasting of an interview with Dennis Nilsen carries with it to all the dangers which the Home Office policy is designed to guard against, namely the possibility of causing distress, enhancing notoriety and encouraging sensationalist journalism. It is, of course, a wholly different matter for such material to be used in support of research by professionals into the detection of criminals . . . I . . . accept that the policy as a general policy is right.’

Judges:

Aldous J

Citations:

[1993] EMLR 253

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedNilsen, Regina (on the Application of) v Governor of HMP Full Sutton and Another Admn 19-Dec-2003
The prisoner complained that having written an autobiography, the manuscript materials had been withheld, and that this interfered with his rights of freedom of expression.
Held: Such an action by the prison authorities was not incompatible . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Media

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.190149

Regina (Wright) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 2001

A serving prisoner suffered a severe asthmatic attack in his cell and died. An inquest was held at which the family of the deceased were present, but unrepresented for want of legal aid. There was no inquiry into the quality of the medical treatment the deceased had received in prison, but the responsible medical officer had been suspended from duty and had previously been found guilty of serious professional misconduct. In an action against the Home Secretary liability was admitted, thus precluding forensic investigation of the case. The family sought judicial review on the grounds, among others, of a failure to protect the life of the deceased and a failure of the procedural obligation arising under article 2 of the Convention to investigate the circumstances of the death.
Held: An investigation, to satisfy article 2, must have certain features, being independent, effective, reasonably prompt, with sufficient public scrutiny, and the next of kin must be involved to an appropriate extent. ‘Where the victim has died and it is arguable that there has been a breach of article 2, the investigation should have the general features identified by the court in Jordan v United Kingdom at paras 106-109’. On the facts that there had been no effective official investigation into the death of the deceased and held that there should be an independent investigation, to be held in public, at which the family should be represented.

Judges:

Jackson J

Citations:

[2001] UKHRR 1399, [2001] EWHC Admin 520, [2001] LLR (Med) 478

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedJordan v United Kingdom; McKerr v United Kingdom; similar ECHR 4-May-2001
Proper Investigation of Deaths with Army or Police
Claims were made as regards deaths of alleged terrorists in clashes with the UK armed forces and police. In some cases the investigations necessary to justify the taking of life had been inadequate. Statements made to the inquiry as to the . .

Cited by:

CitedAmin, 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 . .
CitedAmin, 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 . .
CitedIn re McKerr (Northern Ireland) HL 11-Mar-2004
The deceased had been shot by soldiers of the British Army whilst in a car in Northern Ireland. The car was alleged to have ‘run’ a checkpoint. The claimants said the investigation, now 20 years ago, had been inadequate. The claim was brought under . .
CitedD, 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 . .
CitedTakoushis, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Coroner for Inner North London and others CA 30-Nov-2005
Relatives sought judicial review of the coroner’s decision not to allow a jury, and against allowance of an expert witness. The deceased had been a mental patient but had been arrested with a view to being hospitalised. He was taken first to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.186854

X v United Kingdom: ECHR 5 Oct 1972

A complaint by a prisoner that as a mentally disordered person he should have been held in a psychiatric hospital rather than a prison was rejected as inadmissible.

Citations:

(Unreported 5 October 1972)

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Drew HL 8-May-2003
The defendant was mentally ill. He had been convicted of a second serious offence, and now appealed the life sentence imposed. Psychiatrists had recommended a hospital order, but such an order could not now be made by virtue of the 2000 Act save in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons, Health

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.182173

Regina (D) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: QBD 19 Dec 2002

The applicant had been a discretionary life prisoner. His minimum period of detention had passed, but he continued to be detained under a transfer order for his treatment as mental health patient.
Held: The absence of any means for him to challenge his continued detention infringed his rights. Had the Mental Health Review Tribunal decided he was no longer to be detained, the Secretary of State had a discretion as to whether the case should then be referred to the Discretionary Lifers Panel. The claimant had a right to such a referral. The case of Benjamin now required the procedure to recognise that right. The legislation was not compatible with the Convention because a patient in respect of whom a Tribunal notified the Home Secretary that he should be conditionally discharged, but that if he were not discharged he should continue to be detained in hospital (see section 74(1)(a) and (b)), did not have a legal right to have his case considered by the Parole Board.

Judges:

Stanley Burton J

Citations:

Times 31-Dec-2002, [2002] EWHC 2805 (Admin), [2003] 1 WLR 1318

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5.4, Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, Mental Health Act 1983 74

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ConfirmedRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte H and Others, Regina v Same ex parte Hickey CA 29-Jul-1994
A discretionary life prisoner who had been transferred to a mental hospital is not automatically eligible for a certificate under the section. The right conferred on a discretionary life prisoner by section 34 of the 1991 Act did not extend to those . .

Cited by:

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

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.178702

Ashton and Others v The Ministry of Justice: QBD 16 May 2014

The claimants said that the sanitation arrangements whilst incarcerated at HMP Albany had amounted to degrading treatment, in that the cells had not had in-cell sanitation.
Held: The claims were struck out as a repeat of claims made in the Grant case.

Judges:

Hickinbottom J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 1624 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedGrant and Another v The Ministry of Justice QBD 19-Dec-2011
To establish a breach of Article 3 the Claimant must show he has suffered the ill- treatment he alleges, and that it amounts to a violation of Article 3. The claimant prisoners complained that a lack of in-cell sanitation infringed their human . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.525794

Grant and Another v The Ministry of Justice: QBD 19 Dec 2011

To establish a breach of Article 3 the Claimant must show he has suffered the ill- treatment he alleges, and that it amounts to a violation of Article 3. The claimant prisoners complained that a lack of in-cell sanitation infringed their human rights, and particularly so when confined to their cells for 13 hours overnight.

Judges:

Hickinbottom J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 3379 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prison Act 1952, European Convention on Human Rights 3 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedJanner, Regina (on The Application of) v The Crown Prosecution Service Admn 13-Aug-2015
The claimant challenged the decision that he should face trial on charges of historic sexual abuse. He was now elderly and said to be unfit to attend court or instruct his lawyers, suffering Alzheimers. He sought interim relief against being . .
AppliedAshton and Others v The Ministry of Justice QBD 16-May-2014
The claimants said that the sanitation arrangements whilst incarcerated at HMP Albany had amounted to degrading treatment, in that the cells had not had in-cell sanitation.
Held: The claims were struck out as a repeat of claims made in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.450161

Regina (Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: QBD 5 Oct 2001

An Asian youth was placed in a cell with another who was well known to be violent and racist. He was bludgeoned to death. The family sought a public investigation into how he came to be placed in such a position. An investigation had been refused by the Home Office. The family claimed, under the Human Rights Act, a right to have the matter determined. Investigations by the Coroner, and the Commission for Racial Equality would be limited. Contrary to what the Home Office said, the trial had done nothing to establish how the decision was made to put the two together. There had been an investigation which rejected the possibility of criminal action against the Prison Service. This was not public. An internal Prisons Service enquiry left several questions outstanding. Article 2 imposed a duty to protect life, and investigate a failure to do so. That investigation must be independent, effective, reasonably prompt, allow public scrutiny, and involve next of kin. That had not been satisfied. A declaration was granted requiring the Home Office to conduct such an investigation.

Judges:

Mr Justice Hooper

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 719, [2002] 3 WLR 505

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights Art 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedJordan v United Kingdom; McKerr v United Kingdom; similar ECHR 4-May-2001
Proper Investigation of Deaths with Army or Police
Claims were made as regards deaths of alleged terrorists in clashes with the UK armed forces and police. In some cases the investigations necessary to justify the taking of life had been inadequate. Statements made to the inquiry as to the . .
CitedSalman v Turkey ECHR 27-Jun-2000
Where someone dies or is injured whilst in custody the burden is on the state to provide a ‘satisfactory and convincing explanation’ of what has happened: ‘Persons in custody are in a vulnerable position and the authorities are under a duty to . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina on the Application of Mullholland v HM Coroner for St Pancras QBD 7-Nov-2003
The applicant sought to re-open a coroner’s inquest. The deceased had been drunk, slipped banged his head and fallen to the ground. Police and ambulance were called. The ambulance worker was not told he had been unconscious, and he was taken to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Coroners, Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.166547

Regina v Parole Board and Another ex parte Wilson: CA 6 May 1992

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.

Judges:

Taylor LJ

Citations:

Gazette 06-May-1992, [1992] QB 740, [1992] 2 WLR 707

Cited by:

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

Prisons, Natural Justice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.87525

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 unfairness had then arisen. He had a right to appeal, and that hearing would take place on a de novo basis, with the prisoner then having enhanced right of access and to make representations. The scheme was a non-statutory scheme where it was open to the Home Secretary to lay out the rules.

Citations:

Times 21-Mar-2000, Gazette 06-Apr-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Allen Admn 19-Mar-1999
. .

Cited by:

Appealed toRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Allen Admn 19-Mar-1999
. .
CitedPalmer, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 19-Jul-2004
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 . .
CitedSecretary 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.85513

Brown v United Kingdom: ECHR 26 Oct 2004

The applicant had been sentenced to eight years imprisonment for supplying heroin and released on licence after serving two-thirds of this sentence. He was recalled for breach of the residence conditions of his bail. The Parole Board then considered whether he should be released again and concluded that he should not. He sought to attack this decision by judicial review, but was refused permission. He complained that his recall to detention violated article 5.1 because there was no link between the renewed detention and the original sentence for supplying drugs. He also contended that he was entitled to a court-like review of the justification for his continued detention pursuant to article 5.4.
Held: The comapiant was inadmissible. The recall of a licensee to prison did not to involve the determination of a criminal charge against him: ‘[W]here an applicant is convicted and sentenced by a competent court to a determinate term of imprisonment for the purposes of punishment, the review of the lawfulness of detention is incorporated in the trial and appeal procedures . . No new issues of lawfulness concerning the basis of the present applicant’s detention arose on recall and no right to a fresh review of the lawfulness of his detention arose for the purposes of article 5(4) of the Convention.’
‘The court recalls that the applicant was sentenced to a determinate prison sentence of eight years after conviction by a competent criminal court and accordingly, his detention fell within sub-paragraph 1 (a) above. The applicant seeks to argue that after his release on licence he was lawfully at large and his situation was analogous to the situation applicable to the conditional liberty allowed to those on life licence (for example, Weeks v United Kingdom, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A, no 114) and restricted patients on release from hospital (for example, X v United Kingdom, judgment of 5 November 1981, Series A, no 46) and therefore that his recall had to be properly linked to the basis of his original conviction and in conformity with the varying requirements of article 5.
The court considers however that there is a crucial distinction between the cases cited by the applicant and the circumstances of his own case. Discretionary and mandatory lifers, after the expiry of the punitive element of their sentence, are detained on the basis of risk – the justification for their continued detention is whether it is safe for the public for them to live in the community once more. Similarly the recall of restricted patients is based on factors arising from their mental health. The applicant however has been sentenced to a fixed prison term by a court as the punishment for his offence. The lawfulness of his detention does not depend, in Convention law terms, on whether or not he ceases to be at risk of re-offending. The fact that the applicant before the end of the sentence may expect to be released on licence does not affect this analysis. When such a prisoner is recalled his detention is again governed by the fixed term imposed by the judge conforming with the objectives of that sentence and thus within the scope of article 5 ss 1(a) of the Convention.
Article 5 ss 1 does provide that at all times detention must be ‘in accordance with the law’. The court notes that the basis for the applicant’s recall was considered by the Parole Board, which found that he was in breach of the terms of his licence, and that its decision was in turn subject to judicial review. In the judicial review proceedings the applicant’s arguments concerning the lawfulness of his recall and the Parole Board’s procedure were rejected by the High Court and the Court of Appeal. On the whole bound to respect domestic courts’ interpretation of domestic law (see for example, Benham v United Kingdom, judgment of 10 June 1996, BAILII: [1996] ECHR 22 , Reports 1996-III, ss 41), the court detects no arbitrariness or other feature that would justify it departing from their assessment.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to article 35 ssss 3 and 4 of the Convention.
The applicant complains of lack of a court review of the justification of his continued detention after recall, invoking article 5 ss 4 of the Convention which provides: ‘Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful’.
The court recalls that where an applicant is convicted and sentenced by a competent court to a determinate term of imprisonment for the purposes of punishment, the review of the lawfulness of detention is incorporated in the trial and appeal procedures (see, mutatis mutandis, V v United Kingdom, no 24888/94, ECHR 1999-IX, ss 119, BAILII: [1999] ECHR 171 ; Stafford v the United Kingdom, (2002) 35 EHRR 32, ss 87). No new issues of lawfulness concerning the basis of the present applicant’s detention arose on recall and no right to a fresh review of the lawfulness of his detention arose for the purposes of article 5 ss 4 of the Convention.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to article 35 ssss 3 and 4 of the Convention.’

Citations:

968/04, Unreported, 26 October 2004

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5.4

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedRegina 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: . .
CitedBlack, 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 . .
CitedWhiston, 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.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.222100

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Hickling: CA 1986

Rules enabled the Secretary of State to permit a woman prisoner to have her baby with her in prison, subject to any conditions he thought fit. The Secretary of State had issued a general instruction laying down criteria for admission to a mother and baby unit, together with the procedures to be followed. It stated that the final decision in a particular case should rest with the governor. The governor could arrange for the removal of the baby if he considered that the mother’s behaviour might threaten the serious disruption of the unit or the safety of the baby or other babies in the unit.
Held: The instructions laid down the conditions on which the Secretary of State permitted women prisoners to have their babies with them in prison, as contemplated by the relevant rule. Eveleigh LJ stated that it was not a case of the Secretary of State delegating his authority, but of his laying down conditions which must be fulfilled. Since those conditions addressed matters which the governor was best placed to judge, it was right to allow the governor to decide if they were not being complied with.

Judges:

Eveleigh LJ

Citations:

[1986] 1 FLR 543

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBourgass and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 29-Jul-2015
The Court considered the procedures when a prisoner is kept in solitary confinement, otherwise described as ‘segregation’ or ‘removal from association’, and principally whether decisions to keep the appellants in segregation for substantial periods . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.591145

Payne v Lord Harris of Greewich: CA 1981

A prisoner sought a declaration that he was entitled to be given the reasons for refusing him parole so that he could make representations in rebuttal.
Held: The declaration was refused.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘No doubt it is the duty of all those concerned – from the member of the local review committee, to the Parole Board, to the Secretary of State – to act fairly. That is the simple precept which now governs the administrative procedure of all public bodies. But the duty to act fairly cannot be set down in a series of set propositions. Each case depends on its own circumstances.’
Shaw LJ said: ‘In the well-known case of Reg. v. Gaming Board for Great Britain, Ex partes Benaim and Khaida [1970] 2 QB 417, 430, Lord Denning M.R. said: ‘It is not possible to lay down rigid rules as to when the principles of natural justice are to apply: nor as to their scope and extent. Everything depends on the subject matter . . ‘ In a context in which the public interest may be put at risk by the inopportune release of a prisoner on licence, no constraints or pressures should weigh upon the Parole Board in coming to what must in the end be a decision in which expedience must be an important influence.’
Brightman LJ referred to the same passage from Ex parte Benaim and Khaida and said: ‘The scope and extent of the principles of natural justice depend on the subject matter to which they are sought to be applied.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Shaw LJ

Citations:

[1981] 1 WLR 754

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBourgass and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 29-Jul-2015
The Court considered the procedures when a prisoner is kept in solitary confinement, otherwise described as ‘segregation’ or ‘removal from association’, and principally whether decisions to keep the appellants in segregation for substantial periods . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Natural Justice

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.591146

Regina v Hetherington: CACD 2009

The defendant had spina bifida from birth and hydrocephalus from shortly after birth with consequent severe disabilities and medical problems. The sentencing court had before it, in support of a contention by the defendant that his imprisonment would amount to a breach of Article 3, reports from medical practitioners and from an Area Manager from NOMS setting out the general principles of provision of care to prisoners, and saying that his medical needs could be dealt with in prison. The judge had sentenced him on the basis that he could be imprisoned in accordance with his Convention rights at a particular prison but passed a reduced sentence on the basis of the principles in Bernard.
Held: A careful review was taken of the way in which that appellant was being treated in prison. In the result the court concluded that his needs could be met at the specified prison.

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Crim 1186

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Bernard CACD 2-Jul-1996
The court considered the general effect of serious medical condition on sentencing, and how it should allow for such a condition.
Held: A sentencing court is fully entitled to take account of a medical condition by way of mitigation as a . .

Cited by:

CitedHall v Regina CACD 8-Feb-2013
The defendant had been convicted of the importation of large volumes of cocaine. He was however at the time of sentencing, ‘a man who suffers from an extremely grave combination of rare long term medical conditions which interfere with virtually all . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.470869

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 courts in turn rejected his applications for judicial review on the ground that they had no jurisdiction to intervene.
Held: The circumstances involved the determination of a civil right and that the absence of a judicial remedy involved a violation of Article 6: ‘Whilst it is true that the impact on his private life was indirect, it was nevertheless beyond doubt . . the Court considers that the restriction alleged by the applicant, in addition to its pecuniary implications, related to his personal rights, in view of the significance of the applicant’s interest in resettling in society. In that connection it is of the view that the applicant’s social rehabilitation was crucial to the protection of his right to lead ‘a private social life’ and develop his social identity.’
The violation of Article 6 derived from: ‘the lack of any decision on the merits [which] nullified the effect of the Administrative Court’s review of the Prison Board’s decisions’.
Judge Raimondi (dissenting with Judges Jociene and Sajo) said: ‘In my view, the respondent Government were correct in pointing to the discretionary nature of decisions by the domestic authorities concerning requests for prison leave and in concluding that, where the authorities have discretion as to whether or not to grant a particular concession, that concession does not amount to a ‘right’ and, accordingly, Article 6 . . does not apply to proceedings concerning its granting or otherwise.’ Furthermore, the European Prison Rules contained ‘recommendations’ which ‘by definition’ are not binding.

Judges:

Ireneu Cabral Barreto, P

Citations:

37575/04

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

CitedGanci v Italie ECHR 30-Oct-2003
The applicant was serving two life sentences for Mafia related activities. He challenged nine decrees issued by the Minister of Justice under which he was held under a special prison regime for a period of four years. His case related to delays by . .
CitedGulmez 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 . .
CitedEnea 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 by:

See AlsoBoulois v Luxembourg ECHR 3-Apr-2012
(Grand Chamber) The claimant complained that as a prisoner he had been deprived of his right to a fair hearing and his right of access to a court in connection with the decisions refusing his requests for prison leave.
Held: The complaint was . .
CitedKing, 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.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.468877

Regina (on the application of Downing) v The Parole Board: Admn 2008

The claimant sought damages after a delay in his parole board hearing was said to have delayed his release.
Held: The court identified four factors affecting the level of damages which might be awarded: The length of the delay, the effect of the delay, the impact on the Claimant and the seriousness of the original offence.

Judges:

Ian Dove QC

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 3198 (Admin)

Cited by:

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

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.396595

Sinclair In her Capacity As the Former Receiver v Glatt Executors of Estate of Chaja Glatt and others: Admn 2008

The claimant, the former court appointed receiver of the defendant’s estate under a criminal confiscation order under the 1988 Act made on the defendant’s conviction for money laundering sought to claim against the prisoner’s assets hed by the prison service.
Held: The claimant was entitled to a lien over his property to recover costs of the receivership.

Judges:

Munby J

Citations:

[2008 EWHC 798 (Admin)

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988

Citing:

See AlsoIn Re Glatt Admn 2002
If on an application made in respect of a confiscation order by the defendant the High Court is satisfied that the realisable property is inadequate for the payment of the amount remaining to be recovered under the order, the court shall issue a . .
See AlsoGlatt, Regina v CACD 17-Mar-2006
. .

Cited by:

Appeal fromSinclair In her Capacity As the Former Receiver v Glatt Executors of Estate of Glatt and Glatt and Glatt CA 13-Mar-2009
The court considered the recovery of expenses by a receiver appointed to administer assets of money launderer. The receiver sought to exercise a lien over assets held for the prisoner by the prison to recover the costs of the receivership after the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.334578

Girling v Parole Board and Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 8 Apr 2005

Once the punitive or tariff term of imprisonment on a convicted murderer, is completed, risk to life and limb provides the sole ground for continued detention. The Parole Board, being subject to directions from the Home Secretary, was not an independent tribunal which could satisfy the claimant’s right to a fair trial.

Judges:

Walker J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 546 (Admin), [2006] 1 WLR 1917, [2006] 1 All ER 11

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1991 32(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRoberts 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: . .
Appeal FromGirling v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another CA 21-Dec-2006
The claimant had challenged the findings of the Parole Board in his case, saying that the Board was not an independent tribunal as required under human rights law, since it was subject to direction from the Home Secretary.
Held: The Home . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.224534

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 the Secretary of State, and the complaint was found to be unsubstantiated, but the Commission did consider the jurisdictional issue. It noted that having been sentenced to serve 5 years imprisonment the applicant could have been expected to serve that sentence, but the Commission went on to say that: ‘If a prisoner pre-release scheme were operated in a discriminatory manner, an issue could arise under Article 5 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 14.’

Citations:

12118/86

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5 14

Cited by:

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

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.220030

Regina v Board of Visitors ex parte Lewis: 1986

Judges:

Woolf J

Citations:

[1986] 1 WLR 130

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Carroll and Al-Hasan and Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 16-Feb-2001
The claimants challenged the instruction that they must squat whilst undergoing a strip search in prison. A dog search had given cause to supect the presence of explosives in the wing, and the officers understood that such explosives might be hidden . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Natural Justice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.211432

Regina v Allan, Bunting and Boodhoo: CACD 6 Apr 2001

The authorities intercepted telephone conversations on card phones used by prisoners with people outside the prison. Was the intercepted material admissible? Was it a ‘communication in the course of its transmission . . by means of a public telecommunications system’ ? The lines came into the prison from the BT network. They ran to a control room in which there was a box which contained an isolator switch for each line. The isolator switch could be operated by prison officers to activate or deactivate each line. A recording device was attached to each line and all calls were automatically recorded as soon as a card phone handset was lifted from the rest position. The prisoner used a card to make a phone call.
Held: It was of central importance to determine whether the calls were being transmitted by a public telecommunication system at the time and place of interception. It was a private system at the point of interception, and the intercept was admissible.

Judges:

Keene LJ, Steel J and Sir Brian Smedley

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Crim 1025/6

Statutes:

Interception of Communications Act 1985 1(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Effik; Regina v Mitchell HL 22-Jul-1994
The material obtained by intercepting signals passing between a base unit and the handset of a cordless telephone was admissible because no communication was being made by means of a public system when the calls were intercepted by the police. A . .
CitedMorgans v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 18-Feb-2000
Without a warrant, the police had arranged for a call logger to retain details of the calls made, including the number called, time and duration. The dialing itself was a communication, which established a connection, through which further . .

Cited by:

CitedW, Regina v (Attorney General’s reference no 5 of 2002) CACD 12-Jun-2003
Three serving police officers provided confidential information to a known criminal. The Chief Constable authorised interception of telephones at a police station, a private network. The court accepted that section 17 prevented the defence asserting . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Evidence, Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.183556

Islington London Borough Council v TM: FD 2004

The court considered when a ward of court baby was to live with his mother in a prison mother and baby unit.

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2050 (Fam)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRe A Ward of Court FD 4-May-2017
Ward has no extra privilege from Police Interview
The court considered the need to apply to court in respect of the care of a ward of the court when the Security services needed to investigate possible terrorist involvement of her and of her contacts. Application was made for a declaration as to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Prisons

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.588169

Ryder v United Kingdom: ECHR 19 Jan 1989

The Commission considered whether a prisoner whose rule 39 mail had been opened on 3 occasions in a 15 day period with a further letter having gone missing altogether claimed to be a victim of a violation of article 8.
Held: Inadmissible. The complainer was not a victim because he had failed to demonstrate any deliberate flouting of his rights. The Commission stated: ‘The Commission’s previous law indicates that the opening of a prisoner’s correspondence with his solicitor may raise issues under article 8 of the convention. In the case of McCombe v. The United Kingdom (no. 10621/83, December 11.3.85, to be published in DR) the Commission declared admissible the complaints of a prisoner regarding the censorship of his correspondence with his solicitors. The Commission also recalls that pursuant to a friendly settlement in that case, the United Kingdom government agreed to issue instructions that such correspondence would not be opened, save in the presence of the prisoner concerned.
The Commission notes that these instructions appear to have been implemented in the prisons in which the applicant was detained but that various incidents occurred in which letters from his solicitors were nonetheless opened. The Commission further notes that the applicant was able to complain to the governor and the secretary of state concerning these incidents and received various apologies and explanations, which the commission finds to be reasonable in the circumstances of this case. In the absence of any evidence of a deliberate flouting or disregard of the secretary of state’s instructions, the Commission finds that the applicant can no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of article 8 of the Convention.’

Citations:

14176/88

Statutes:

European Convention on Human R

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

CitedMcCombe v The United Kingdom ECHR 12-Nov-1985
The Commission declared admissible the complaints of a prisoner regarding the censorship of his correspondence with his solicitors. (Settlement: the United Kingdom government agreed to issue instructions that such correspondence would not be opened, . .

Cited by:

CitedBruton 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.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.582167

McCombe v The United Kingdom: ECHR 12 Nov 1985

The Commission declared admissible the complaints of a prisoner regarding the censorship of his correspondence with his solicitors. (Settlement: the United Kingdom government agreed to issue instructions that such correspondence would not be opened, save in the presence of the prisoner concerned.)

Citations:

10621/83

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedRyder v United Kingdom ECHR 19-Jan-1989
The Commission considered whether a prisoner whose rule 39 mail had been opened on 3 occasions in a 15 day period with a further letter having gone missing altogether claimed to be a victim of a violation of article 8.
Held: Inadmissible. The . .
CitedBruton 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.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.582166

Touroude v France: ECHR 3 Oct 2000

A single letter to a prisoner had been wrongfully opened by mistake.
Held: A distinction was drawn from a case where, by reason of their repetition, incidents had revealed a malfunctioning of the mail service within the prison interfering with the right to respect for correspondence within article 8

Citations:

35502/97

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedBruton 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.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.582170

Gelman v France: ECHR 2006

Article 3 requires: ‘the state to ensure that prisoners are detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject them to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, their health and well-being are adequately secured by, among other things, providing them with the requisite medical assistance.’

Citations:

(2006) 42 EHRR 4

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3

Cited by:

CitedRegina 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.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.470868

X v The United Kingdom: ECHR 14 Dec 1979

(Commission – Plenary) – Inadmissible – article 6 inapplicable. The categorisation of a prisoner is ‘administrative’ rather than a determination of disputes about civil rights.

Citations:

8575/79

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6

Cited by:

CitedKing, 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.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.468878

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 access to the courts: ‘the placement of the applicants in high-security cells led in particular, in addition to solitary confinement in itself . . the restriction of visits to one hour a week – with prisoner and visitor separated by a glass panel – the restriction of exercise to one hour a day and the impossibility, for the first applicant, of continuing with his studies and sitting exams . . these are restrictions on ‘individual civil rights’. Such restrictions on the prisoner’s rights, as well as the repercussions that they may have, must therefore be analysed in terms of ‘civil rights’ (see Enea).’

Citations:

46194/06

Links:

Hudaoc

Citing:

CitedGanci v Italie ECHR 30-Oct-2003
The applicant was serving two life sentences for Mafia related activities. He challenged nine decrees issued by the Minister of Justice under which he was held under a special prison regime for a period of four years. His case related to delays by . .
CitedGulmez 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 . .
CitedEnea 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 by:

CitedKing 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: . .
CitedKing, 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.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.468876

Regina v Secretary of State ex parte Toner and Walsh: NIQB 1997

The claimants sought damages saying that the respondent had infringed their human rights in removing their right to vote in an election whilst serving prison sentences.

Citations:

[1997] NIQB 18

Cited by:

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

Northern Ireland, Human Rights, Prisons, Elections

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.430458

Regina (Dean Solomon) v The Parole Board: Admn 2006

Judges:

Munby J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 2639 (Admin)

Cited by:

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

Prisons

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.424201

Youngsam, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parole Board and Another: CA 27 Feb 2019

Appeal from a decision that article 5(4) of the Convention did not apply to the recall from parole licence of determinate sentence prisoners. The judge also found that there was no breach of the common law duty of the Parole Board to make decisions concerning the liberty of offenders without undue delay.

Judges:

Lady Justice Nicola Davies DBE

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 229

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.634078

Sauve v Canada (Chief Electoral Officer): 31 Oct 2002

Canlii Supreme Court of Canada – Constitutional law – Charter of Rights – Right to vote – Prisoners – Canada Elections Act provision disqualifying persons imprisoned in correctional institution serving sentences of two years or more from voting in federal elections – Crown conceding that provision infringes right to vote – Whether infringement justified – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 3 – Canada Elections Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-2, s. 51(e).
Constitutional law – Charter of Rights – Equality rights – Prisoners – Canada Elections Act provision disqualifying persons imprisoned in correctional institution serving sentences of two years or more from voting in federal elections – Whether provision infringes equality rights – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 15(1) – Canada Elections Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-2, s. 51(e).
Elections – Disqualifications of electors – Prisoners – Canada Elections Act provision disqualifying persons imprisoned in correctional institution serving sentences of two years or more from voting in federal elections – Whether provision constitutional – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 3, 15(1) – Canada Elections Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-2, s. 51(e).

Judges:

McLachlin CJ and L’Heureux-Dube, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ.

Citations:

218 DLR (4th) 577, 168 CCC (3d) 449, 5 CR (6th) 203, 294 NR 1, JE 2002-1974, [2002] SCJ No 66 (QL), 117 ACWS (3d) 553, [2002] ACS no 66, 55 WCB (2d) 21, 98 CRR (2d) 1, [2002] 3 SCR 519, 2002 SCC 68 (CanLII)

Links:

Canlii

Cited by:

CitedChester, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 16-Oct-2013
The two applicants were serving life sentences for murder. Each sought damages for the unlawful withdrawal of their rights to vote in elections, and the failure of the British parliament to take steps to comply with the judgment.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Elections, Prisons, Constitutional

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.540466

X v The United Kingdom: ECHR 20 Dec 1974

Commission – Inadmissible – Article 8 of the Convention : Right to respect for correspondence. Detention after conviction. Complaint not pursued
Article 9 of the Convention : Buddhist prisoner not permitted to send out material for publication in a Buddhist magazine. Failed to prove that this was a necessary part of his religious practice.
Article 10 of the Convention : Buddhist prisoner not permitted to send out material for publication in a Buddhist magazine. Difficulties for prison authorities of checking such correspondence. Measure necessary for the prevention of disorder or crime (Article 10, paragraph 2) .

Citations:

5442/72

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedCore Issues Trust v Transport for London Admn 22-Mar-2013
The claimant sought judicial review of the decision made by TfL not to allow an advertisement on behalf of the Trust to appear on the outside of its buses. It was to read: ‘NOT GAY! EX-GAY, POST-GAY AND PROUD. GET OVER IT!’. The decision was said to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons, Ecclesiastical

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.538715

Frerot v France: ECHR 12 Jun 2007

fereot_franceECHR062007

ECHR A former member of the extreme left armed movement ‘Action directe’, the applicant, convicted in 1995 to 30 years’ imprisonment for – among other offences – terrorism, complained about strip searches in prison. Violation of Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 6-1 (right to a fair trial)

Citations:

70204/01

Links:

ECHR

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.511155

Hassan v Secretary of State for Justice: Admn 27 May 2011

The claimant prisoner complained that his confinement to a segregation unit had been unlawful.
Held: A period of segregation in HMP Full Sutton for some seven weeks ‘did not interfere with the claimant’s Article 8 rights as a prisoner sufficiently significantly as to require justification’

Judges:

Ouseley J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 1359 (Admin)

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Cited by:

CitedKing, 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.

Prisons, Torts – Other

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.440230

William Pate v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 2002

The court considered the prisoner’s complaint that the respondent’s policies on the re-classification of prisoners were unlawful in that they disallowed the prison governor from classifying him as Category B despite the fact that as a frail and elderly prisoner any escape threat did not exist.
Held: Though it may be legitimate to have a policy aiming to make escape impossible for certain prisoners, it was not lawful to exclude the possibility that this objective could be achieved even in category B. Turner J said: ‘my judgment is that, the policy of making escape as near impossible as can be for prisoners who form the small group in which this claimant is found is not itself unlawful at least insofar as it excludes the exercise of discretion. This is on the basis that the aim of the policy is such as to preclude discretion at the stage when consideration is given to its formation. On the other hand, it is not a necessary incident of that policy that no consideration, as a matter of policy . . is given to the individual escape potential of prisoners within that group. The objective (aim) may be capable of being met with a lower categorisation in which event there is plainly scope, and I would hold duty, for the exercise of discretion.’

Judges:

Turner J

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 1018 (Admin)

Cited by:

CitedRoberts, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 12-Mar-2004
The claimant complained at a decision not to reduce his Category A status to that of a category B prisoner. He continued to maintain his innocence of the murders for which he had been convicted. He was therefore ineligible to take part in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.416334