Category: Prisons

C, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: CA 28 Jul 2008

The court was asked as to what methods of physical restraint were proper in institutions accommodating youths in custody.
Held: The Court had been wrong not to quash the amended rules on the grounds of procedural breaches. The amended rules would have infringed the human rights of the children to whom such restraint was to be applied and were contrary to the requirements of Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR, because:
i) It reminded itself of the general position under Article 3 of the ECHR that physical force in respect of a person deprived of his liberty that is not strictly necessary diminishes human dignity and is in principle a violation of Art 3.
ii) It noted that the House of Lords in its judicial capacity has declared that Article 3 when applied to children in custody had to be interpreted consistently with the provisions of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 in particular Articles 37 and the views of the Committee on the Rights of the Child as the expert monitoring body charged with the implementation of the state’s obligations under the Convention.
[1] It further noted that in General Comment 8 of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child indicate that deliberate infliction of pain is not permitted as a form of control of juveniles.
iii) It concluded that both pain compliance control techniques, and restraint generally when applied for the purposes contemplated in the amended rules would violate the principles of Article 3, when applied to children.
iv) It rejected a submission on behalf of the Secretary of State that any over-broadness of the amended Rules could be cured when read down in the light of detailed policy instructions that the Secretary of State for Justice would give to staff operating the rule.
v) It concluded that in any event the advice given in the Code of Practice about restricting the use of restraint was uncertain and unsatisfactory and had not been changed to apply to the new regime of the amended rules broadening the power to use restraint in support of good order and discipline.
vi) It rejected the only evidence in the case in which it was suggested that use of restraint was strictly necessary to enforce good order and discipline. This evidence was a statement of Mr. Wilson-Smith director of Hassockfield STC. The Court was critical of this evidence and its consistency with the law at the time of Adam’s death [24]. It noted in particular that the view of the law taken by Mr. Wilson Smith and leading counsel for Serco at the Rickwood inquest was wrong.
vii) It concluded that the amendments could not be justified as strictly necessary to maintain discipline. The amended rules therefore violated both Article 3 and Article 8 ECHR.

Judges:

Buxton LJ, Tuckey LJ, Keene LJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 882, [2009] 2 WLR 1039, [2009] QB 657, [2009] UKHRR 688

Links:

Bailii, Times

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Mouisel v France ECHR 14-Nov-2002
The applicant had been sentenced to 50 years’ imprisonment for several offences. He had leukemia and was to receive chemotherapy in hospital. He complained of the conditions to which he was subjected during the hospital visits, including the . .
Cited – Faizovas, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 9-May-2008
Challenge by elderly prisoner with cancer to be handcuffed whilst attending hospital. He was in prison for a violent sexual offence, and whilst in prison had not engaged in offending reducing programs. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Pounder, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Coroner for the North and South Districts of Durham and Darlington and others Admn 22-Jan-2009
The deceased died aged 14 in a Secure Training Centre by hanging. He had complained of his treatment and restraint methods used. The mother sought judicial review of the conduct of the inquest, wanting the coroner not to have ruled on the legality . .
Cited – E and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 10-Jun-2011
Judicial review was sought of a decision by the respondent to prosecute a child for her alleged sexual abuse of her younger sisters. Agencies other than the police and CPS considered that a prosecution would harm both the applicant and her sisters. . .
Cited – FGP v Serco Plc and Another Admn 5-Jul-2012
The claimant said that whilst he had been being taken from an immigration detention centre to hospital, he had been restrained by various forms of handcuffs. He said that had been unlawful.
Held: The claim failed: ‘ the recommendation that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.272235

Lunn, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Prison Moorland: Admn 26 Oct 2005

The applicant sought to have included in the calculation of time served the period of 56 days during which he had been mistakenly released on licence after an administrative error.
Held: The period was not to be included.

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2558 (Admin), Times 02-Nov-2005

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.235397

Lawless v Ireland (No 3): ECHR 1 Jul 1961

The Irish Government derogated from article 5 in July 1957 in order to permit detention without charge or trial, and the applicant was detained between July and December 1957. He could have obtained his release by undertaking to observe the law and refrain from activities contrary to the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1940, but instead challenged the lawfulness of the Irish derogation. He failed.
Held: It was for the court to determine whether the conditions laid down in article 15 for the exercise of the exceptional right of derogation had been made out: ‘In the general context of Article 15 of the Convention, the natural and customary meaning of the words ‘other public emergency threatening the life of the nation’ is sufficiently clear; they refer to an exceptional situation of crisis or emergency which affects the whole population and constitutes a threat to the organised life of the community of which the State is composed. Having thus established the natural and customary meaning of this conception, the Court must determine whether the facts and circumstances which led the Irish Government to make their Proclamation of 5 July 1957 come within this conception. The Court, after an examination, finds this to be the case; the existence at the time of a ‘public emergency threatening the life of the nation’ was reasonably deduced by the Irish Government from a combination of several factors, namely: in the first place, the existence in the territory of the Republic of Ireland of a secret army engaged in unconstitutional activities and using violence to attain its purposes; secondly, the fact that this army was also operating outside the territory of the State, thus seriously jeopardising the relations of the Republic of Ireland with its neighbour; thirdly, the steady and alarming increase in terrorist activities from the autumn of 1956 and throughout the first half of 1957. Despite the gravity of the situation, the Government had succeeded, by using means available under ordinary legislation, in keeping public institutions functioning more or less normally, but the homicidal ambush on the night of 3 to 4 July 1957 in the territory of Northern Ireland near the border had brought to light, just before 12 July – a date, which, for historical reasons, is particularly critical for the preservation of public peace and order – the imminent danger to the nation caused by the continuance of unlawful activities in Northern Ireland by the IRA and various associated groups, operating from the territory of the Republic of Ireland.’

Citations:

332/57, (1961) 1 EHRR 15, [1961] ECHR 2

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – A 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 . .
Cited – Austin and Another v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis HL 28-Jan-2009
Movement retsriction was not Liberty Deprivation
The claimants had been present during a demonstration policed by the respondent. They appealed against dismissal of their claims for false imprisonment having been prevented from leaving Oxford Circus for over seven hours. The claimants appealed . .
Cited – Hicks and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis SC 15-Feb-2017
The claimants had wanted to make a peaceful anti-monarchist demonstration during the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. They complained that the actions of the respondent police infringed their human rights by preventing that . .
Cited – Hicks and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis CA 22-Jan-2014
The claimants said that the restrictive tactics used by the respondent when policing crowds at a royal wedding.
Held: The appeals failed. The police had reasonable grounds for suspecting that the claimants were likely to cause a breach of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.164859

Gulmez v Turkey: ECHR 20 May 2008

The applicant complained inter alia of successive decisions which had deprived him of visitation rights for about a year as punishment for disciplinary offences whilst in prison.
Held: ‘the restriction on the applicant’s visiting rights clearly fell within the sphere of his personal rights and was therefore civil in nature’.
An individual must be able to know from the wording of the relevant provision and, if need be, with the assistance of the court’s interpretation of it what acts and omissions will make him criminally liable.

Citations:

[2008] ECHR 402, 16330/02

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

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

Cited by:

Cited – Purdy, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 30-Jul-2009
Need for Certainty in Scope of Offence
The appellant suffered a severe chronic illness and anticipated that she might want to go to Switzerland to commit suicide. She would need her husband to accompany her, and sought an order requiring the respondent to provide clear guidelines on the . .
Cited – Uzukauskas v Lithuania ECHR 6-Jul-2010
ECHR The applicant had a licence for a pistol and rifle. His was refused another licence, and then the existing licence was withdrawn. His name had been included in a police list in an operational records file . .
Cited – Enea v Italy ECHR 17-Sep-2009
(Grand Chamber) The applicant, a prisoner serving a long sentence for Mafia-type criminal offences, was subjected to a special regime by ministerial decrees. The restrictions included not only very limited family visits but also a long period . .
Cited – Stegarescu and Bahrin v Portugal ECHR 6-Apr-2010
The two applicants complained that they had been held in solitary confinement for seven months after receipt of intelligence about an escape plan.
Held: There had been a violation of the prisoners’ article 6 rights. They had been given no . .
Cited – King v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 13-Oct-2010
The claimant sought judicial review of decisions that the claimant had committed a disciplinary offence whilst in custody at a Young Offenders Institute.
Held: The claim failed.
Pitchford LJ considered the ECHR jurisprudence, and said: . .
Cited – Boulois v Luxembourg ECHR 14-Dec-2010
The applicant was serving a long sentence for serious offences. He had submitted several requests for ‘prison leave’ in order to carry out tasks in preparation for his eventual release. These had been refused by the Attorney General. The domestic . .
Cited – King, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 27-Mar-2012
In each case the prisoners challenged their transfer to cellular confinement or segregation within prison or YOI, saying that the transfers infringed their rights under Article 6, saying that domestic law, either in itself or in conjunction with . .
Cited – Bourgass and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 29-Jul-2015
The Court considered the procedures when a prisoner is kept in solitary confinement, otherwise described as ‘segregation’ or ‘removal from association’, and principally whether decisions to keep the appellants in segregation for substantial periods . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.268029

Black, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: CA 15 Apr 2008

The prisoner complained of the power given to the defendant to block the early release of prisoners sentenced between certain dates for serious offences, saying that such a decision was for the courts only.
Held: The provision was incompatible with the claimant’s human rights.

Judges:

Lord Justice May, Lord Justice Latham and Lord Justice Moore-Bick

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 359, Times 18-Apr-2008, [2008] 3 WLR 845

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1991 35, European Convention on Human Rights 5.1 5.4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In re De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v Belgium (No 1) ECHR 18-Nov-1970
The applicants had been detained under Belgian vagrancy laws. An earlier decision had found that their rights had been infringed because of the lack of effective means for them to challenge their detention. The Belgian government said that the . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Black, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice HL 21-Jan-2009
The appellant complained that the system for considering the release of a life prisoner did not comply with the Convention when the decision was made by the Secretary of State and not by the Parole Board, or the court. The Board had recommended his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266871

Regina (Cavanagh) v Home Secretary: Admn 2002

There is nothing irrational in denying enhanced status and privileges to prisoners who refuse to undertake treatment courses.
Held: ‘There is, to my mind, nothing unfair or inappropriate in requiring a sex offender, guilty of serious sexual offences as these claimants were, to attend an SOTP [Sex Offenders Training Programme] even if he denies he is guilty of those offences. It is a key purpose of imprisonment to encourage constructive behaviour by a prisoner and thereby reduce the risk of his reoffending and increase protection to the public. It is, therefore, fair and rational to encourage participation in a course which may reduce risk of reoffending by means of the schemes for providing an incentive to attend such a course and granting privileges to those who undertake such courses.’

Judges:

Moses J

Citations:

[2002] Prison Law Reports 120

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (on the Application of Cawser) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 5-Nov-2003
The claimant was serving a prison sentence for serious sexual offences. He would not be released until he had completed a sex offenders programme, but one was not made available, delaying his release.
Held: ‘The Secretary of State is not under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.187527

Middleton, Regina (on the Application of) v Coroner for the Western District of Somerset: Admn 14 Dec 2001

The deceased had committed suicide whilst in prison. It was argued that the prison should have recognised that he was a suicide risk, and acted accordingly. The coroner had requested a note from the jury as to the cause of death. The court considered whether a coroner’s inquest satisfied the requirements for an investigation of a death in custody: ‘However, where there has been neglect on the part of the State, and that neglect was a substantial contributory cause of the death, my view is that a formal and public finding of neglect on the part of the State is in general necessary in order to satisfy those requirements [of article 2].’ An inquest would not necessarily satisfy the procedural requirements of article 2 in such a case, but the court declined to order that the jury’s note be incorporated in the inquisition, because inter alia the coroner had acted unlawfully in suggesting production of the note. No declaration was needed but, at the request of the Secretary of State, declared that: ‘by reason of the restrictions on the verdict at the inquest into the death of [the deceased] . . . that inquest was inadequate to meet [the] procedural obligation in Article 2 of the European Convention . . .’

Judges:

Stanley Burnton J

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 1043

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Walthamstow Coroner, Ex parte Rubenstein 19-Feb-1982
The 1988 Act was a consolidating Act. . .
Cited – Regina v HM Coroner for Birmingham, Ex parte Secretary of State for the Home Department 1990
. .
Cited – Regina v Coroner for Western District of Sussex Ex Parte Homberg Roberts and Mannerss QBD 27-Jan-1994
A Coroner’s enquires should be as to ‘how’ the death arose, and not into all the circumstances contributing to the death.
Simon Brown LJ said: ‘It is clear that the coroner’s over-riding duty is to inquire ‘how’ the deceased came by his death . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina (Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Regina (Middleton) v Coroner for West Somersetshire CA 27-Mar-2002
A prisoner had been killed in his cell by a cell-mate known to be unstable and racist. His family sought to be involved in the inquiry into the death within the prison system. A second prisoner hanged himself in his cell. His family alleged that he . .
Cited – Middleton, Regina (on the Application of) v Coroner for the Western District of Somerset HL 11-Mar-2004
The deceased had committed suicide in prison. His family felt that the risk should have been known to the prison authorities, and that they had failed to guard against that risk. The coroner had requested an explanatory note from the jury.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Coroners, Human Rights

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.194501

Regina (Smith) v Parole Board (No 2): CA 31 Jul 2003

The applicant having been released on licence had his licence revoked. The decision had been made at a hearing which considered evidence on paper only, which he said was unfair.
Held: The case law had maintained a proper distinction between the determination of a criminal charge and otherwise. The first required an oral hearing for fairness, but otherwise not. A recall operated within a situation where the licensee was already subject to the sentence and conditions of his licence.The Parole Board was assessing prospective risk and probabilities, and it was not an area susceptible of proof beyond reasonable doubt. There had been no request for an oral hearing in this case, and the claimant was entitled to submit written representations. There was no unfairness.

Judges:

Kennedy, Brooke LJJ, Holman J

Citations:

Times 02-Sep-2003, Gazette 11-Sep-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 1269, [2003] 1 WLR 2548, Gazette 02-Oct-2003, [2004] 1 WLR 421

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5.1 6.1, Criminal Justice Act 1991 39(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Manchester Crown Court, ex parte McCann and others QBD 22-Nov-2000
An application for an anti-social behaviour order against an individual was a civil, not a criminal proceeding. The standard of evidence required was on the balance of probability; the civil standard. Such proceedings were not subject to the . .
Appealed to – Regina v Parole Board ex parte Smith, Regina v Parole Board ex parte West (Conjoined Appeals) HL 27-Jan-2005
Each defendant challenged the way he had been treated on revocation of his parole licence, saying he should have been given the opportunity to make oral representations.
Held: The prisoners’ appeals were allowed.
Lord Bingham stated: . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (Sim) v Parole Board CA 18-Dec-2003
The prisoner had been sentenced to an extended term of five years imprisonment for indecent assault. He had been released, and then recalled for alleged breaches of his licence. The respondent appealed findings that such a recall was subject to . .
Cited – Clift, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 29-Apr-2004
The claimant was a prisoner serving a determinate term exceeding 15 years. He complained that the respondent’s remaining juridsiction as to his release on licence infringed his human rights.
Held: This was the sole remaining element of the . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Hindawi and Headley CA 13-Oct-2004
The applicant was a foreign national serving a long-term prison sentence. He complained that UK nationals would have had their case referred to the parole board before his.
Held: The right to be referred to the parole board was a statutory . .
Appeal from – Regina v Parole Board ex parte Smith, Regina v Parole Board ex parte West (Conjoined Appeals) HL 27-Jan-2005
Each defendant challenged the way he had been treated on revocation of his parole licence, saying he should have been given the opportunity to make oral representations.
Held: The prisoners’ appeals were allowed.
Lord Bingham stated: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.186097

Noone, Regina (on the Application of) v HMP Drake Hall and Another: Admn 31 Jan 2008

The court considered the complications created when the schemes for providing early release of short term prisoners had not been implemented, but the new Act impacted in the previous arrangements anyway as regards those sentenced to consecutive sentences for less and more than 12 months. The Secretary of State had issue a policy guidance which set out how the calculations of the release date should be made.
Held: The scheme brought in by 2005 Regulations was unlawful, being a policy decision, and: ‘It is simply unacceptable in a society governed by the rule of law for it to be well nigh impossible to discern from statutory provisions what a sentence means in practice. That is the effect here.’
Mitting J said: ‘The only policy capable of giving effect to the policy of the 2003 Act and to the rational expectations of prisoners dealt with under both Acts is to ensure that they are not disadvantaged in relation to Home Detention Curfew, but are subject to the maximum period of licence on release which can lawfully be imposed.’ The one implemented was not such a policy.

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 207 (Admin), [2008] ACD 43

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 2003 174(1)(b)(i), Criminal Justice Act 2003
(Commencement No 8 and Transitional and Savings Provisions) Order 2005

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Highton, Regina (on the Application of) v Her Majesty’s Youth Offender Institute Lancaster Farms and Another Admn 17-Apr-2007
Challenge to calculation of servable sentence term. . .

Cited by:

At First Instance – Noone, Regina (on The Application of) v Governor of HMP Drake Hall and Another SC 30-Jun-2010
The prisoner had been sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment, one for less, and one for more than 12 months. She disputed the date on which she should be released to home detention under curfew under the Guidance issued by the Secretary of . .
Appeal From – Noone, Regina (on the Application of) v HMP Drake Hall and Another CA 17-Oct-2008
The prisoner disputed the calculation of the date when she would become entitled to consideration for early release under a Home Detention Curfew. The Secretary of State appealed against a decision that his policy guidance was unlawful.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Prisons

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.264522

Z v Latvia: ECHR 24 Jan 2008

The applicant alleged that his detention on remand was excessively long, that the proceedings against him were unreasonably long and that he was denied a fair trial since his requests to examine witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of further witnesses were refused by the domestic courts.
The court declared inadmissible the applicant’s complaint that he had not been allowed to vote in the referendum on the accession of Latvia to the EU. The obligations imposed on Contracting States by A3P1 were ‘limited to parliamentary elections and do not apply to referendums’.

Judges:

BM Zupancic P

Citations:

14755/03, [2008] ECHR 76

Links:

Bailii, Hudoc

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Moohan and Another v The Lord Advocate SC 17-Dec-2014
The petitioners, convicted serving prisoners, had sought judicial review of the refusal to allow them to vote in the Scottish Referendum on Independence. The request had been refused in the Outer and Inner Houses.
Held: (Kerr, Wilson JJSC . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons, Elections

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.264393

Brooke and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v The Parole Board and Another: CA 1 Feb 2008

The claimant prisoner complained that the Parole Board was insufficiently independent of government to provide a fair hearing. The court at first instance had found that the relationship between the Parole Board and the sponsoring Department put the Secretary in a position of apparent influence over the approach of the Parole Board in its curial duties. From that position he had sought, inappropriately, to influence the manner in which the Board performed its duties. The Secretary said the Board did not act as a court.
Held: The Board could have standing as a court. The Secretary of State had used his power of appointment to influence decisions, and ‘a court must be independent not only of the parties but of the executive. This is not merely because this is a requirement of the separation of powers but because the executive sometimes has an interest in the result of the proceedings. So far as the Parole Board is concerned the possibility exists that the Secretary of State may be anxious for the Board to apply a stricter, or alternatively a more lenient, test to releasing prisoners than that required by the law.’ The appellant had restricted te Board from oral hearings by restricting its budget. The findings of lack of independence were fully justified. The power to remove a Parole Board member was also too widely expressed. As to sponsorhsip of the Board by the appellant: ‘the relationship between the Board and its sponsoring units has been and is one that is liable to create the perception that the Board is not independent. The fact that the Board has to work closely with NOMS requires that it should be manifestly independent of NOMS. The current sponsorship arrangements defeat that requirement. ‘

Judges:

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers CJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 29, Times 05-Feb-2008, [2008] 1 WLR 1950, [2008] 3 All ER 289, [2008] UKHRR 500

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights, Criminal Justice Act 2003 19

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Secretary of State for Justice v Walker; Same v James CA 1-Feb-2008
The claimant had been sentenced to a short period of imprisonment but with an indeterminate term until he demonstrated that it was no longer necessary for the protection of the public. He complained that the term having expired, no opportunity had . .
Cited – Weeks v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-Mar-1987
The applicant, aged 17, was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment in the interests of public safety, being considered by the trial judge on appeal to be dangerous.
Held: ‘The court agrees with the Commission and the . .
Cited – Stafford v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-May-2002
Grand Chamber – The appellant claimed damages for being held in prison beyond the term of his sentence. Having been released on licence from a life sentence for murder, he was re-sentenced for a cheque fraud. He was not released after the end of the . .
Cited – Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Oct-1990
The applicants, discretionary life prisoners, complained of a violation on the ground that they were not able to have the continued lawfulness of their detention decided by a court at reasonable intervals throughout their imprisonment.
Held: A . .
Cited – Hirst v United Kingdom ECHR 24-Jul-2001
The applicant asserted that the delays in the reviews, undertaken by the Parole Board, of his continued detention as a discretionary life prisoner, was a breach of his right to a speedy decision. The delays were between 21 and 24 months. Such delays . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Parole Board, ex Parte Watson CA 11-Mar-1996
The test as to whether there was still a need to protect the public safety from the defendant was just as appropriate when considering the revocation of a licence, as it was when the need for continued detention was being reviewed before the grant . .
Cited – Girling 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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – Secretary of State for Justice v Walker; Same v James CA 1-Feb-2008
The claimant had been sentenced to a short period of imprisonment but with an indeterminate term until he demonstrated that it was no longer necessary for the protection of the public. He complained that the term having expired, no opportunity had . .
Cited – McGetrick, Regina (on The Application of) v Parole Board and Another CA 14-Mar-2013
The claimant prisoner appealed against refusal of review of the use of allegations and evidence of offences not tried against him when deciding as to his release on licence. The material would suggest that he might pose a continuing risk to . .
Cited – McGetrick, Regina (on The Application of) v Parole Board and Another CA 14-Mar-2013
The claimant prisoner appealed against refusal of review of the use of allegations and evidence of offences not tried against him when deciding as to his release on licence. The material would suggest that he might pose a continuing risk to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.264053

Fehily and Others v Governor of Wandsworth Prison and Another: Admn 19 Jun 2002

The defendants had been sent direct for trial under the section, being charged with indictable only offences, but the prosecution had failed to serve the necessary evidence and documents within the time limit. No application was made by the prosecution to extend the time limit save by a letter which arrived to late to allow the defendants to apply. The defendants issued a writ of habeas corpus.
Held: Nothing in the Act envisaged charges being dismissed for the prosecution’s failure. The Act even envisaged a voluntary indictment being issued if charges were dismissed. A judge has the power to extend the time for service after the limit has expired and even though no application had been made by the prosecution within that limit.

Judges:

Lord Justice Rose and Mr Justice Gibbs

Citations:

Times 18-Jul-2002, [2002] EWHC 1295 (Admin

Statutes:

Crime and Disorder Act 1998 51

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Bentham, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Prison Wandsworth Admn 7-Feb-2006
The defendant sought a writ of habeas corpus, saying that he had been wrongfully committed to the crown court under the 1998 Act. The note referred only to a ‘conspiracy without further specification. The crown court had remitted him to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Prisons

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.174445

T, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 18 Dec 2007

The applicant was a former police informer. As an immigrant and following a conviction for a serious offence he was to be detained on completing his sentence pending deportation. He complained that because of his history, his place of detention in Belmarsh was unsafe.

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 3074 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Prisons

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.263493

Wright and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 20 Jun 2001

The claimant’s alleged that the respondents’ medical treatment of the deceased whilst in prison had been so poor to infringe his human rights.

Judges:

Jackson J

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 520

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.263512

Dickson and Another v United Kingdom: ECHR 15 Dec 2007

(Grand Chamber) The complainants were husband and wife. They had been married whilst the husband served a sentence of life imprisonment. They had been refused suport for artificial insemination treatment.
Held: The claim succeeded. The refusal infringed their human right to family and private life. The refusal had been on the basis that the couple’s relationship had not been tested under normal conditions, and that insufficient provision had been made for the care of any child born through a procedure. However a refusal of such treatment would effectively prevent the couple ever having children. No great security or administrative provisions were required. There is no place in human rights law for the refusal of humane treatment for any desire not to offend public opinion. The refusal also offended against the need for rehabilitation as the prisoner came toward the end of a long sentence.
If there is to be any restriction on Convention rights of prisoners or detainees, that has to be justified in each individual case. This justification can flow from the ‘necessary and inevitable consequences of imprisonment’ or from ‘an adequate link between the restriction and the circumstances of the prisoner in question’. But the justification cannot be based ‘solely on what would offend public opinion’.

Judges:

Rozakis P

Citations:

2008) 46 EHRR 41, [2007] ECHR 1050, Times 21-Dec-2007

Links:

Bailii Press Release, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8 12

Citing:

See Also – Dickson and Another v United Kingdom ECHR 18-Apr-2006
The applicants were husband and wife who wanted infertility treatment by IVF. Mr Dickson as a prisoner, and they complained that the refusal of facilities was an interference in their right to family life as a refusal to fulfil a positive . .

Cited by:

Cited – Marper v United Kingdom; S v United Kingdom ECHR 4-Dec-2008
(Grand Chamber) The applicants complained that on being arrested on suspicion of offences, samples of their DNA had been taken, but then despite being released without conviction, the samples had retained on the Police database.
Held: . .
Cited – AB, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another Admn 4-Sep-2009
The claimant was serving a sentence of imprisonment. She was a pre-operative transgender woman, but held in a male prison. She sought review of a decision to refuse transfer to a women’s prison. The Gender Recognition Panel was satisfied that the . .
Cited – O’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 . .
Cited – Bary and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another Admn 19-Mar-2010
The applicants, incarcerated at Long Lartin pending extradition or deportation, challenged a decision further restricting their movements within the prison. All were unconvicted, and all but one were suspected of terrorist crimes. The changes were . .
Cited – City of London v Samede and Others QBD 18-Jan-2012
The claimant sought an order for possession of land outside St Paul’s cathedral occupied by the protestor defendants, consisting of ‘a large number of tents, between 150 and 200 at the time of the hearing, many of them used by protestors, either . .
Cited – T and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another SC 18-Jun-2014
T and JB, asserted that the reference in certificates issued by the state to cautions given to them violated their right to respect for their private life under article 8 of the Convention. T further claims that the obligation cast upon him to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262978

Haase, Regina (on the Application of) v Independent Adjudicator and others: Admn 20 Dec 2007

The claimant prisoner complained that the obligation imposed on him to submit to drugs tests was unlawful.

Judges:

Stanley Burnton J

Citations:

[2008] 1 WLR 1401, [2007] EWHC 3079 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Appeal from – Haase, Regina (on the Application of) v Independent Adjudicator and Another CA 14-Oct-2008
The appellant complained that as a prisoner he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for refusing to co-operate with drugs tests. He said that he had not been informed that there would be a penalty if he did not comply. He now complained that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262946

Milnyali, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 4 Oct 2007

The claimant said that he had been unlawfully detained after completing his sentence for theft. The defendant had continued his detention saying that he was an Algerian, and pending re-admission to Algeria. The Algerians did not recognise him.

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2411 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Torts – Other, Prisons

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.260204

Regina (Gulliver) v Parole Board: CA 4 Jul 2007

The claimant had been released on licence, and recalled. He complained that the parole board had, in considering his re-release taken into account circumstances beyond those which had directly caused his recall.
Held: The prisoner’s appeal failed. The Board was entitled to take into account all the circumstances, including but not limited to, the reason for his recall. The principles in re Watson applied to other prisoners and not just to lifers. A decision to recall will not be reviewable, save in exceptional circumstances where it can be demonstrated that the recall decision was itself unlawful. In reaching a decision the Parole Board adopts a two-stage process, asking itself, first, in relation to a recall decision, whether the recall was appropriate, but then secondly whether the person concerned ought to be released by reference not merely to the circumstances of recall, but also by assessment of the risk to the public posed by the re-release of the person concerned, on the basis of all the material available to it when making the decision.

Judges:

Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Sir Igor Judge P, Buxton LJ

Citations:

Times 20-Aug-2007, [2007] EWCA Civ 1386, [2008] 1 WLR 1116

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 2003 254

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Gulliver, Regina (on the Application of) v Parole Board Admn 6-Nov-2006
. .
Cited – Regina v Parole Board, ex Parte Watson CA 11-Mar-1996
The test as to whether there was still a need to protect the public safety from the defendant was just as appropriate when considering the revocation of a licence, as it was when the need for continued detention was being reviewed before the grant . .

Cited by:

Cited – Chater, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another Admn 2-Aug-2010
The claimant sought judicial review of his treatment after recall to prison from licence. He had a history of the sexual abuse of children. A police surveillance report had been rejected by the Parole Board, but they had nevertheless continued his . .
Cited – Howden, Regina (on The Application of) v The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Admn 15-Oct-2010
The claimant challenged a decision to return him to prison from release on licence. He said that in a non-urgent situation it was wrong for the Secretary of State to accept police intelligence without further enquiries.
Held: The claim failed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258852

Niazi and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another: Admn 26 Jun 2007

The applicants complained that the respondent had unlawfully withdrawn an ex gratia scheme for compensation for miscarriages of justice.
Held: The withdrawal had not been unlawful. The scheme was entirely discretionary.

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1495 (Admin), Times 09-Jul-2007

Links:

Bailii

Prisons

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.253666

Graczyk v Poland: ECHR 15 May 2007

Citations:

38340/04, [2007] ECHR 494

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Cited by:

See Also – Graczyk v Poland ECHR 18-Jan-2011
The applicant complained, among other articles, under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his nearly 2 year long detention in Sosnowiec Remand Centre. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.253602

Cooper, Regina (on the Application of) v Parole Board: Admn 18 May 2007

The prisoner complained that the Prison service had set a target ot 55 days for hearing a request for a review after a prisoner’s recall.
Held: The prisoner’s case involved a wait of 59 days. The target itself was unlawful in that it failed to meet the requirement of providing a speedy review. If the target was led by resources, then more resources should be allocated.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1292 (Admin), Times 06-Jun-2007

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5.4

Cited by:

Cited – Massey, Regina (on the Application of) v Parole Board of England and Wales and Another Admn 21-Apr-2008
The claimant had a long history of serious criminal involvement, escapes from custody and committing further offences whilst free. Having been released on licence and returned to prison for breaches of his licence curfew conditions. He said that he . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.253296

Somerville, Cairns, Ralston, Blanco and Henderson v The Scottish Ministers: OHCS 3 Nov 2006

Judges:

Lord President And Lord Nimmo Smith And Lord Macfadyen

Citations:

[2006] ScotCS CSIH – 52, 2007 SC 140

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Appeal from – Somerville v Scottish Ministers HL 24-Oct-2007
The claimants complained of their segregation while in prison. Several preliminary questions were to be decided: whether damages might be payable for breach of a Convention Right; wheher the act of a prison governor was the act of the executive; . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.252760

HMP Wandsworth, Governor of v Kinderis: Admn 3 May 2007

The defendant had been subject to an application for extradition to Lithuania. He had consented to the extradition and was in custody awaiting the transfer. At the same time he awaited trial in the Crown Court, and the judge had ordered his detention pending the trial.
Held: There appeared to be conflicting orders. In this case the governor was not required to deliver the prisoner to the crown court, but instead only to answer to the order when it came surrendering him for extradition.

Judges:

Laws LJ, Beason J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 998 (Admin), Times 03-May-2007

Links:

Bailii

Extradition, Prisons

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.251805

Raissi, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 22 Feb 2007

The claimant sought judicial review of a refusal to make an ex gratia payment for his imprisonment whilst successfully resisting extradition proceedings. Terrorist connections had been suggested, but the judge made an explicit finding that at no stage had any evidence been produced.
Held: The 1988 Act provided only limited circumstances for a payment, but it had left in place the residual arrangements under the ex gratia scheme. The respondent said that the scheme covered only successful appeals after conviction, and not extraditions. There was no legitimate expectation because the scheme was based solely on a ministerial statement, and it was ex gratia. The implementation of such policies was subject to oversight by the courts only for irrationality: ‘courts should allow latitude to a minister to decide, within a reasonable range of meaning of his statement of policy, to what it applies and what it means.’ The ex gratia scheme applies only to exceptional circumstances arising out of a wrongful conviction or charge, and the claim failed. Extradition proceedings were not within the scheme. It would have been surprising if the scheme had been intended to make the UK responsible for a failing in a foreign prosecutor.

Judges:

Auld LJ, Wilkie J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 243 (Admin), [2007] 4 All ER 225

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988 133

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Mullen, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 29-Apr-2004
The claimant had been imprisoned, but his conviction was later overturned. He had been a victim of a gross abuse of executive power. The British authorities had acted in breach of international law and had been guilty of ‘a blatant and extremely . .
Cited – The First Secretary of State and Another v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd CA 6-May-2005
Sedley LJ: ‘the interpretation of policy is not a matter for the Secretary of State, what a policy means is what it says. Except in the occasional case where a policy has been ambiguously or un-clearly expressed (see R v Derbyshire CCC, ex p Woods . .
Cited – Regina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte Webb CA 1987
Interpretation of CICB Scheme
The court should not construe the scheme as if it were a statute but as a public announcement of what the Government was willing to do. This entails the court deciding what would be a reasonable and literate man’s understanding of the circumstances . .
Cited – Horsham District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment CA 1993
. .
Cited – Regina v Derbyshire County Council ex parte Woods CA 7-Feb-1997
The claimant renewed his application for leave to appeal against rejection of his challenge to the grant of planning permission for a substantial redevelopment of land near his home.
Held: Brooke LJ considered the interpretation of planning . .
Cited – Regina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte Kent and Milne Admn 6-Mar-1998
The court applied the test of ‘the reasonable and literate man’ to questioning the action of the Board. . .
Cited – Springhall, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames CA 24-Jan-2006
The claimant appealed refusal of a judicial review of the exercise of a delegated power by an official.
Held: Where the underlying facts and the applicable polices were clear, such an officer’s decision could only be challenged in the case of . .
Cited – Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd HL 28-Oct-1999
Same Sex Paartner to Inherit as Family Member
The claimant had lived with the original tenant in a stable and long standing homosexual relationship at the deceased’s flat. After the tenant’s death he sought a statutory tenancy as a spouse of the deceased. The Act had been extended to include as . .
Cited – Regina ex parte Grecian v Secretary of State for the Home Department 3-Dec-2004
. .
Cited – In re McFarland HL 29-Apr-2004
The claimant was convicted, imprisoned, and then his conviction was overturned. He sought compensation. He had pleaded guilty after being told by counsel to expect an adverse direction from the magistrate, following a meeting in private between . .
Cited – Daghir and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 13-Feb-2004
. .
Cited – Regina v Galbraith CCA 1981
Rejection of Submission of No Case to Answer
The defendant had faced a charge of affray. The court having rejected his submission of having no case to answer, he had made an exculpatory statement from the dock. He appealed against his conviction.
Held: Lord Lane LCJ said: ‘How then . .
Cited – Regina v Governor of Pentonville Prison Ex Parte Alves HL 2-Dec-1992
In extradition proceedings, the withdrawal of a statement did not of itself vitiate that statement or the proceedings. The Galbraith test applied to committals in extradition proceedings just as it does to domestic criminal trials. . .
Cited – In Re Levin; Regina v Governor of Brixton Prison, Ex parte Levin HL 10-Apr-1997
The applicant had been detained pending extradition to the United States on charges of fraud. He said the evidence would not have been sufficient to justify his committal for trial.
Held: The Francis case did not establish that the 1984 Act . .
Cited – In Re Ismail (Application For Writ of Habeas Corpus) (On Appeal From A Divisional Court of The Queen’s Bench Division) HL 20-Aug-1998
The term ‘Accused person’ for the purposes of extradition can include a person yet to be charged. Allowance are to be made for foreign systems, and should recognise the purpose of the legislation and includes the desire to interview or where a . .
Cited – Fofana, Belise v Deputy Prosecutor Thubin, Tribunal De Grande Instance De Meaux, France QBD 5-Apr-2006
When considering whether an offence was disclosed in an extradition application, what matters is the nature of the conduct described in the extradition request or warrant; the ‘charge’ has no formal status in the extradition proceedings. It is an . .
Cited – Fofana, Belise v Deputy Prosecutor Thubin, Tribunal De Grande Instance De Meaux, France QBD 5-Apr-2006
When considering whether an offence was disclosed in an extradition application, what matters is the nature of the conduct described in the extradition request or warrant; the ‘charge’ has no formal status in the extradition proceedings. It is an . .
Cited – Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions Ex Parte Thom QBD 21-Dec-1994
The Court could not judicially review a decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions not to discontinue extradition proceedings because, when acting in such proceedings on behalf of the requesting state, the Director does not act as a prosecutor, . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department, ex parte Bateman – Regina v Same ex parte Howse QBD 5-May-1993
Compensation for a wrongful imprisonment should include circumstances of miscarriage of justice as well as pardons. A magistrate is not a public authority. The threshold of exceptionality is high: ‘It was essentially a question for the Secretary of . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Raissi, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 14-Feb-2008
The claimant appealed against refusal of his request for judicial review of the defendant’s decision not to award him damages after his wrongful arrest and detention after he was wrongly suspected of involvement in terrorism. He had been discharged . .
Cited – VB and Others v Westminster Magistrates SC 5-Nov-2014
Extraditions to follow normal open justice rules
Application was made by Rwanda for the extradition of four individuals to face crimes said to have been committed during their civil war. Witnesses were prepared to give evidence but only in private and not being seen by the representatives of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Prisons

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248994

Smith v KD Scott, Electoral Registration Officer: SCS 24 Jan 2007

The prisoner claimed that his right to vote had not been re-instated despite a year having passed since the European Court of Human Rights had found that the withdrawal of that right for prisoners was an infringement.
Held: It was not possible to read down the provision of the 1983 Act, and a declaration of incompatibility was necessary. The Court of Session was a body able to make such an order. The 2000 Act had already restored the rights of prisoners held on remand, but more was required.

Judges:

Lord Abernathy

Citations:

[2007] ScotCS CSIH – 9, 2007 SLT 137, [2007] CSIH 9, 2007 SC 345, 2007 GWD 3-46, 2007 SCLR 268

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Representation of the People Act 1983 3(1), Representation of the People Act 2000

Citing:

Cited – Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza HL 21-Jun-2004
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession
The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law . .
Cited – Bellinger v Bellinger HL 10-Apr-2003
Transgender Male to Female not to marry as Female
The parties had gone through a form of marriage, but Mrs B had previously undergone gender re-assignment surgery. Section 11(c) of the 1973 Act required a marriage to be between a male and a female. It was argued that the section was incompatible . .
Cited – Hirst v United Kingdom (2) ECHR 6-Oct-2005
(Grand Chamber) The applicant said that whilst a prisoner he had been banned from voting. The UK operated with minimal exceptions, a blanket ban on prisoners voting.
Held: Voting is a right not a privilege. It was a right central in a . .

Cited by:

Cited – Tovey and Others v Ministry of Justice QBD 18-Feb-2011
The claimants, serving prisoners, sought damages saying that the refusal to allow them to vote was in infringement of their human rights. The large numbers of claims had been consolidated in London. The claimant sought to withdraw his claim.
Cited – Chester, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 16-Oct-2013
The two applicants were serving life sentences for murder. Each sought damages for the unlawful withdrawal of their rights to vote in elections, and the failure of the British parliament to take steps to comply with the judgment.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Elections, Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248025

Girling 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 Secretary’s appeal succeeded. The meaning of the word ‘directions’ depended on its context. The power in the Act was to be construed as for the giving of general directions only, and could not limit or extend the considerations which the Board had to allow for. So construed, there was no infringement.
Sir Anthony Clarke MR said: ‘Like all English words used in a statute (or indeed elsewhere), the meaning of the word ‘directions’ depends upon its context. The conclusion reached by the judge would we think be correct if the power to give directions included a power to direct the Board how it was to decide a particular case or class of case, because that would be to impugn the independence of the Board and to interfere with its functions as a court. However, if the power to give directions is construed as including, and being limited to, a power to give general directions to the Board to assist it to exercise its powers within the law, we can see no objection in principle to such a power being conferred on the Secretary of State.’

Judges:

Sir Anthony Clarke, Master of the Rolls, Sir Igor Judge, President and Lord Justice Carnmwath

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1779, Times 19-Jan-2007, [2007] 2 WLR 782, [2007] 2 All ER 688, [2007] QB 783

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1991 32(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal From – 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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – Brooke and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v The Parole Board and Another CA 1-Feb-2008
The claimant prisoner complained that the Parole Board was insufficiently independent of government to provide a fair hearing. The court at first instance had found that the relationship between the Parole Board and the sponsoring Department put the . .
Cited – McGetrick, Regina (on The Application of) v Parole Board and Another CA 14-Mar-2013
The claimant prisoner appealed against refusal of review of the use of allegations and evidence of offences not tried against him when deciding as to his release on licence. The material would suggest that he might pose a continuing risk to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.247498

Karagozlu v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: CA 12 Dec 2006

The claimant made a claim for misfeasance in public office. The defendant argued that such a claim required proof of special damage. The claimant said that the deprivation of liberty amounted to such damage. Whilst serving a prison sentence the police had advised the prison service to move him from an open prison to secure conditions at first for his own safety, and then on other grounds. He said that the informatin was given in bad faith.
Held: The court assumed at this stage that the basis of the claim was true. Loss or damage was an essential ingredient of the tort of misfeasance. A person who was unlawfully detained as a result of false imprisonment was entitled to general damages. It did not seem correct in principle to distinguish between what was injury or damage for the purposes of false imprisonment on the one hand and misfeasance on the other. Loss of liberty should be relevant injury or damage in both cases or neither, and the Thompson guidelines applied in either case. The loss of the freedom he would have enjoyed as a category D prisoner was a sufficient loss.

Judges:

Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Lord Justice Scott Baker and Lord Justice Thomas

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1691, Times 26-Dec-2006, [2007] 1 WLR 1881

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Thompson v Commissioner of Police of Metropolis; Hsu v Same CA 20-Feb-1997
CS Damages of 200,000 pounds by way of exemplary damages had been awarded against the police for unlawful arrest and assault.
Held: The court gave a guideline maximum pounds 50,000 award against police for . .
Cited – Brasyer v Maclean PC 1875
(New South Wales) A false return was made by a sheriff which led to the arrest of the plaintiff and his attachment for 24 hours. The court had non-suited the plaintiff since no malice had been shown.
Held: The appeal succeeded. It was . .
Cited – Watkins v Home Office and others HL 29-Mar-2006
The claimant complained of misfeasance in public office by the prisons for having opened and read protected correspondence whilst he was in prison. The respondent argued that he had suffered no loss. The judge had found that bad faith was . .

Cited by:

Cited – Prison Officers Association v Iqbal CA 4-Dec-2009
The claimant, a prisoner, alleged false imprisonment. The prison officers had taken unlawful strike action leaving him to be confined within his cell and unable to be involved in his normal activities. In view of the strike, a governor’s order had . .
Cited – Houchin v Lincolnshire Probation Trust QBD 9-Apr-2013
The defendant sought to have the claim struck out. The prisoner said that the defendant’s probation officer had through misfeasance in public office arranged for his transfer back to secure conditions from open ones. The parole board panel had found . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Torts – Other

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.246970

Gulliver, Regina (on the Application of) v Parole Board: Admn 6 Nov 2006

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 2976 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (Gulliver) v Parole Board CA 4-Jul-2007
The claimant had been released on licence, and recalled. He complained that the parole board had, in considering his re-release taken into account circumstances beyond those which had directly caused his recall.
Held: The prisoner’s appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.246775

Caines, Regina v, Regina v Roberts: CACD 23 Nov 2006

The prisoners appealed the review of the recommended minimum terms they must serve on that term being reviewed by the court, saying that the court should have made allowance for the exceptional progress to rehabilitation made in prison.
Held: If the evidence is in essence fresh information about the offender, a court will normally not require the conditions and formalities of the governing statutory provision. The court could properly make such an allowance: ‘the decision consequent on an application under Schedule 22 was a sentencing decision to which normal sentencing principles applied.’ The appeal of Caines succeeded, but leave was refused to Roberts. Both prosecution and defence counsel had a duty to prepare and be ready to assist the court in the interpretation of the applicable statutory provisions for sentencing. It was ‘at the very least permissible’ to make a reduction to the tariff to reflect exceptional behaviour and the reduction should be made at the end of the process so as to ensure that it resulted in ‘real benefit’ to the prisoner.
Judge J P said: ‘Good behaviour is not enough to constitute exceptional progress. We agree that the standard should be very high: the progress must be exceptional, outstanding, and bearing in mind that it provides the basis for a reduction in a period fixed for the purposes of punishment and deterrence, so it should be. Even where the necessary high standard is reached, the impact on the total tariff period is likely to be very modest. The longest reduction so far has not exceeded two years, and in the significant majority of cases where exceptional progress has been established, the reduction has been for one year. It also appears, and logically it is plain, that such progress falls to be considered when the minimum period is coming towards its end. Finally, it is a prerequisite to any reduction that the risk assessment should be favourable.’
. . And: ‘From time to time, the court will be provided with updated information about the offender. This sometimes takes the form of prison reports, sometimes confidential information from the police. The sources vary. The information may serve to show, for example, that the prisoner has provided considerable assistance to the police; sometimes aspects of the mitigation are significantly underlined in a way which may not have been as clear or emphatic in the Crown Court; sometimes the information may indicate that the offender has made significant progress since the sentence began, a feature particularly relevant in cases involving young offenders. The formal procedures for the admission of fresh evidence are not followed. This court simply considers the evidence before it. So, for example, if a young offender has responded positively to his custodial sentence, and his progress is such that it may be counter-productive for him to serve the sentence actually imposed, it may be reduced on appeal, or changed to a non-custodial disposal, without any implied criticism of the decision of the Crown Court. In short, post-sentence information may impact on and produce a reduction in sentence (for a recent example of post-sentence evidence bearing on and explaining aspects of mitigation, with a consequent reduction in the minimum term following conviction for murder, see R v Sampson [2006] EWCA Crim 2669 ).’

Judges:

Sir Igor Judge, President, Mr Justice Holland and Mr Justice Goldring

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Crim 2915, Times 07-Dec-2006, [2007] 2 All ER 584, [2007] 1 WLR 1109

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 2003 Sch 22

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Barker, Regina v CACD 24-Oct-2008
The defendant appealed against the minimum term imposed on her under the 2003 Act. She argued that the court should have made allowance for the fact that she had made exceptional progress since arriving in prison.
Held: Caines established that . .
Cited – Bamber, Regina v CACD 14-May-2009
The defendant had been convicted in 1986 of the murder of five members of his adoptive family. The judge had initially recommended a minimum term of 25 years. A later judge had suggested a whole life term. The convictions had been upheld in 2002. . .
Cited – Regina v Coonan (Formerly Sutcliffe) QBD 16-Jul-2010
The respondent had been convicted of thirteen murders and eight attempted murders. He had claimed to have been acting in response to a divine voice heard when he worked in a graveyard. He was diagnosed a paranoid schizophrenic. The murders had . .
Cited – Rogers, Regina v CACD 1-Jul-2016
The court was asked as to as to the circumstances in which s.23 of the 1968 Act applies to fresh evidence or other information which an appellant may seek to adduce before this court on an appeal against sentence.
Held: The rules applicable to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.246371

Gardner, Regina (on the Application of) v Parole Board: CA 5 Sep 2006

The prisoner challenged his exclusion from a parole board hearing whilst evidence was taken. He was serving a long sentence for a violent attack, and had re-offended only shortly after his release. His ex-wife had been unwilling to confront him, and he had been excluded whilst she gave evidence.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘The short procedural code set out in Rule 19 contains the essential features of fairness but it is obviously not designed to deal expressly with every eventuality and so is couched in flexible rather than absolute language. It is similar to the procedural rules for other tribunals which are designed to confer the widest possible procedural discretion to enable the tribunal to discharge its duties.’
The Rules do give a panel power to exclude a prisoner whilst a witness is giving evidence in circumstances such as those which arose in this case. The applicant had known what evidence was to be given, it was given in the presence of his own counsel who had opportunity to test her evidence in cross examination.

Judges:

Mummery LJ, Tuckey LJ, Wilson LJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1222, Times 29-Sep-2006

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prison Rules 2004 19

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Roberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .
Appeal from – Gardner, Regina (on the Application Of) v the Parole Board Admn 21-Dec-2005
The court considered whether a parole review board can exclude the prisoner from part of a hearing and if so on what grounds.
Held: The parole board had the required power. Both Rule 19 (2) and 19 (3) gave the panel the power which they . .
Cited – D (A Minor), Regina (on the Application of) v Camberwell Green Youth Court HL 27-Jan-2005
The defendant challenged the obligatory requirement that evidence given by a person under 17 in sex or violent offence cases must normally be given by video link.
Held: The purpose of the section was to improve the quality of the evidence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Natural Justice

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.244809

O v Crown Court at Harrow: HL 26 Jul 2006

The claimant said that his continued detention after the custody time limits had expired was an infringement of his human rights. He faced continued detention having been refused bail because of his arrest on a grave charge, having a previous conviction for another grave offence.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Insofar as the the word ‘satisfied’ implied a burden of evidence on the defendant, the Act should be read own under the 1998 Act so that any burden of evidence lay on the prosecution, so as not to create an interference with the defendant’s human rights. That being done, the appeal failed.
Lord Brown of Underheaton: ‘in the vast majority of cases the court will reach a clear view one way or the other whether the conditions for withholding bail specified by Schedule 1 to the Bail Act are satisfied. But just occasionally the court will be left unsure as to whether the defendant should be released on bail-the only situation in which the burden of proof assumes any relevance-and in my judgment bail would then have to be granted. That must be the default position. Section 25 should in my judgment be read down to make that plain. ‘
Lord Carswell: ‘The two key requirements imposed by article 5(3) are, first, that the prosecution must bear the overall burden of justifying a remand in custody-it must advance good and sufficient public interest reasons outweighing the presumption of innocence and the general presumption in favour of liberty; and, secondly, that the judge must be entitled to take account of all relevant considerations pointing for and against the grant of bail so as to exercise effective and meaningful judicial control over pre-trial detention. ‘

Judges:

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hutton, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood

Citations:

[2006] UKHL 42, [2006] 3 WLR 195, [2007] 1 AC 249

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 25, European Convention on Human Rights 5(3), Prosecution of Offences (Custody Time Limits) Regulations 1987 (SI 1987/299)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina (Sim) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 11-Feb-2003
The defendant had been convicted of a serious offence involving violece or sex, and been made subject to a extended sentence. He had been released on licence but recalled, and now challenged the system under which it had been decided that he should . .
Cited – Ilijkov v Bulgaria ECHR 26-Jul-2001
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 5-4; Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention . .
Cited – Regina v Lichniak HL 25-Nov-2002
The appellants challenged the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment imposed on them on their convictions for murder. They said it was an infringement of their Human Rights, being arbitrary and disproportionate.
Held: The case followed on . .
Cited – Caballero v United Kingdom ECHR 29-Feb-2000
Provisions were in place which said that a person charged with a very serious crime of violence having once been convicted previously of rape or murder he was to be refused bail automatically. Although the provision had later been altered, the . .
Cited – Regina v Offen; Regina v McGuillard; Regina v McKeown; Regina v Okwuegbunam; Regina v Saunders (Stephen) CACD 15-Nov-2000
For the purposes of the Act, where a defendant faced a compulsory life sentence following two convictions for certain offences, a finding by the judge that the defendant did not pose a serious risk to society, could be an exceptional circumstance . .
Cited – McClean, Re HL 7-Jul-2005
The appellant was serving a life sentence for terrorist offences. He complained that he should have been released under the 1998 Act. It was said he would be a danger to the public if released. On pre-release home leave he was involved in a . .
Cited – Hutchison Reid v The United Kingdom ECHR 20-Feb-2003
The applicant had been detained over many years after committing offences of a sexual and violent nature. After one release he reoffended and was re-detained after completing his sentence. He challenged the basis of his continued detention.
Cited – Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .
Cited – Stogmuller v Austria ECHR 10-Nov-1969
Hudoc Violation of Art. 5-3; Just satisfaction reserved
The court contrasted the stipulation in article 6(1)-the general requirement for a hearing of any proceedings, civil or criminal, ‘within a reasonable . .
Cited – Regina v Leeds Crown Court, Ex parte Bagoutie 31-May-1999
Lord Bingham: ‘The court made plain in Ex p McDonald, as indeed is plain on the face of the statute, that when seeking an extension or a further extension of the custody time limit the Crown must show that there is good and sufficient [reason] for . .
Cited – Regina (Gibson and Another) v Winchester Crown Court QBD 24-Feb-2004
The defendant challenged extension of the custody time limit, saying that the prosecuting authorities had not acted with due diligence to take the case forward.
Held: Though the prosecutor had not acted as required, in this case the actual . .
Cited – SBC v The United Kingdom ECHR 19-Jun-2001
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 5-5; No violation of Art. 13
The respondent government conceded that the absolute ban on the grant of bail to section 25 . .
Cited – Punzelt v The Czech Republic ECHR 25-Apr-2000
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-3 with regard to length of detention; No violation of Art. 5-3 with regard to refusal of bail; No violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim . .
Cited – Contrada v Italy ECHR 24-Aug-1998
The court rejected a complaint under article 5(3). The court said: ‘The right of an accused in detention to have his case examined with particular expedition must not hinder the efforts of the courts to carry out their tasks with proper care . . In . .
Cited – Grisez v Belgique ECHR 26-Sep-2002
The court held that ‘the medical experts did actually cause a certain amount of delay in the conduct of the proceedings,’ and rejected the complaint under article 5(3): ‘[T]he delay due to the medical reports, although improper, does not in itself . .
Cited – Regina v Kansal (2) HL 29-Nov-2001
The prosecutor had lead and relied at trial on evidence obtained by compulsory questioning under the 1986 Act.
Held: In doing so the prosecutor was acting to give effect to section 433.
The decision in Lambert to disallow retrospective . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243433

JB, Regina (on the Application of) v Responsible Medicial Officer, Dr Haddock: CA 11 Jul 2006

JB challenged his detention under the 1983 Act.
Held: The judicial review procedure afforded a sufficient appeal procedure for a detainee.

Judges:

Auld LJ, Scott Baker LJ, neuberger LJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 961, [2006] HRLR 40

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1983 37 41

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – T-Mobile (Uk) Ltd. and Another v Office of Communications CA 12-Dec-2008
The claimant telecoms companies objected to a proposed scheme for future licensing of available spectrum. The scheme anticipated a bias in favour of auctioniung such content. It was not agreed whether any challenge to the decision should be by way . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Prisons, Judicial Review

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243063

Hirst v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 6 Jul 2006

The prisoner had been released on licence but then recalled. He complained that the procedure infringed his human rights. He had been convicted of manslaughter, and was seen to be a long term danger. The court awarded him compensation saying that the parole board had unduly delayed in informing him of the reasons for his recall, and in providing him with a copy of the dossier relating to the decision, but rejected other submissions. He now said that the section allowed imposition of an arbitrary decision of the executive, where it should be a judicial one.
Held: The appeal failed. The ‘appellant’s recall was justified in law by the link between the discretionary sentence of life imprisonment imposed following his conviction for manslaughter and his behaviour during the short period while he was living in the community on licence. This gave rise to realistic concerns for public safety. These considerations underpin the statutory scheme in section 32, which, no doubt with the decisions of the European Court in mind, was designed to protect the public from the risk of harm consistently with the entitlements provided for the appellant by article 5. Far from creating hesitation with the legitimacy of such processes, the jurisprudence of the European Court endorses them. ‘

Judges:

Sir Igor Judge, President, Scott LJ, Hallett LJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 945, Times 12-Jul-2006

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5, Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 32

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Hirst, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another Admn 21-Jun-2005
Challenge to recall of lifer to prison after release on licence. . .
Cited – Weeks v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-Mar-1987
The applicant, aged 17, was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment in the interests of public safety, being considered by the trial judge on appeal to be dangerous.
Held: ‘The court agrees with the Commission and the . .
Cited – Waite v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-Dec-2002
The claimant had been sentenced to be detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure when a youth. After release on licence, the Parole Board met and revoked that licence without an oral hearing, and in contravention of the rules. He did not dispute the facts . .
Cited – Stafford v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-May-2002
Grand Chamber – The appellant claimed damages for being held in prison beyond the term of his sentence. Having been released on licence from a life sentence for murder, he was re-sentenced for a cheque fraud. He was not released after the end of the . .
Cited – Regina (Noorkoiv) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another CA 30-May-2002
The claimant was a prisoner. He became entitled to be considered for release on parole, but was not released because the Parole Board had not made a decision.
Held: The system for consideration of the release of discretionary and life . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.242993

Dickson and Another v United Kingdom: ECHR 18 Apr 2006

The applicants were husband and wife who wanted infertility treatment by IVF. Mr Dickson as a prisoner, and they complained that the refusal of facilities was an interference in their right to family life as a refusal to fulfil a positive obligation.
Held: No breach was established. The requirements for compliance with article 8 were not clear cut, and facilities varied widely through the EU. The policy was to allow IVF for serving prisoners in exceptional circumstances, and was justified by welfare concerns and the maintenance of public confidence. The application had been carefully considered and could not be shown to be arbitrary or unreasonable.

Citations:

44362/04, Times 16-May-2006, [2006] ECHR 430, [2007] ECHR 17, [2011] ECHR 1662

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

Cited – Regina 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 . .

Cited by:

See Also – Dickson and Another v United Kingdom ECHR 15-Dec-2007
(Grand Chamber) The complainants were husband and wife. They had been married whilst the husband served a sentence of life imprisonment. They had been refused suport for artificial insemination treatment.
Held: The claim succeeded. The refusal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons, Health

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.242614

Taunoa and others v Attorney General and another: 31 Aug 2007

(Supreme Court of New Zealand) Complaints by prisoners at treatment under prisons’ behaviour modification programmes.

Judges:

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath and Henry JJ

Citations:

[2007] NZSC 70, [2007] 5 LRC 680

Links:

Nzlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Lumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 23-Mar-2011
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Torts – Other, Prisons

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.431211

Gardner, Regina (on the Application Of) v the Parole Board: Admn 21 Dec 2005

The court considered whether a parole review board can exclude the prisoner from part of a hearing and if so on what grounds.
Held: The parole board had the required power. Both Rule 19 (2) and 19 (3) gave the panel the power which they exercised. The Board had a responsibility to reconcile as far as it could its obligations to the prisoner with its obligations to protect society including third parties such as witnesses and that in order to discharge these obligations. Rule 19(2) must be construed purposively to achieve a balance between these obligations.

Judges:

Munby J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2981 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prison Rules 2004 819

Citing:

Cited – Roberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Gardner, Regina (on the Application of) v Parole Board CA 5-Sep-2006
The prisoner challenged his exclusion from a parole board hearing whilst evidence was taken. He was serving a long sentence for a violent attack, and had re-offended only shortly after his release. His ex-wife had been unwilling to confront him, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241529

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

Prisoners were disciplined after refusing to be squat searched, saying that the procedure was humiliating and that there were no reasonable grounds to suspect them of any offence against prison discipline. The officer who had been involved in ordering the search was the one later who decided on their complaint that it was unlawful.
Held: Alternative arrangements could have been and should have been made.
Lord Brown said: ‘it seems to me clear both as a matter of principle and authority that once proceedings have been successfully impugned for want of independence and impartiality on the part of the tribunal, the decision itself must necessarily be regarded as tainted by unfairness and so cannot be permitted to stand.’ The decisions were set aside, but because the 1998 Act was not retrospective, and no prisoner had served extra days, no damages would be awarded.
Lord Rodger discussed the possibility of a prison governor being impartial, saying: ‘I have no doubt that an informal and fair-minded observer would regard the prison governor or their deputies as being quite capable of interpreting and applying the prison rules fairly and independently, even though they are obviously committed to upholding them.’

Judges:

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

Citations:

[2005] UKHL 13, Times 18-Feb-2005, [2005] 1 All ER 927, [2005] 1 WLR 688

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Locabail (UK) Ltd, Regina v Bayfield Properties Ltd CA 17-Nov-1999
Adverse Comments by Judge Need not be Show of Bias
In five cases, leave to appeal was sought on the basis that a party had been refused disqualification of judges on grounds of bias. The court considered the circumstances under which a fear of bias in a court may prove to be well founded: ‘The mere . .
Cited – Davidson v Scottish Ministers HL 15-Jul-2004
The claimant had sought damages for the conditions in which he had been held in prison in Scotland. He later discovered that one of the judges had acted as Lord Advocate representing as to the ability of the new Scottish Parliamentary system to . .
Cited – Pabla Ky v Finland ECHR 22-Jun-2004
A member of the Finnish Parliament who also sat as an expert member of the Court of Appeal was said to lack independence as a judge.
Held: The complaint was rejected. Also there was no no objective justification for the applicant’s fear as to . .
Cited – McGonnell v The United Kingdom ECHR 8-Feb-2000
The applicant owned land in the parish of St Martin’s in Guernsey. He made a number of applications for planning permission for residential use, but they were all rejected. In about 1986 he moved into a converted packing shed on his land. In 1988 a . .
Cited – J I MacWilliam Co Inc v Mediterranean Shipping Company S A, ‘The Rafaela S’ CA 16-Apr-2003
Machinery was damaged whilst in transit, on the second of two legs. The contract described itself as a through bill of lading, but the port of discharge was not the final destination.
Held: The contract was a straight bill of lading. A . .
Cited – Regina v Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Ex parte Parker 1953
. .
Cited – In re S (Minors) (Care Order: Implementation of Care Plan) HL 14-Mar-2002
Section 3(1) of the 1998 Act is not available where the suggested interpretation is contrary to express statutory words or is by implication necessarily contradicted by the statute. The judge’s task is to interpret, not to legislate. The proposed . .
Cited – Regina v Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Ex parte Fry 1954
. .
Cited – Leech v Governor of Parkhurst Prison HL 1988
The House was asked whether a disciplinary decision by a governor was amenable to judicial review.
Held: The functions of a governor adjudicating upon disciplinary charges are separate and distinct from his functions in running the prison; . .
Cited – 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.’ . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Re McKiernan’s Application 1985
The court found difficulty in drawing a logical distinction between the disciplinary functions of governors and Boards of Visitors. . .
First Instance – 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 . .
Cited – Ezeh and Connors v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Jul-2002
The applicants were serving prisoners. They had been the subject of disciplinary proceedings in which they had been denied the right to representation. They claimed an infringement of their right to a fair trial.
Held: Both proceedings had . .
Cited – 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. . .
Cited – Davidson v Scottish Ministers HL 15-Jul-2004
The claimant had sought damages for the conditions in which he had been held in prison in Scotland. He later discovered that one of the judges had acted as Lord Advocate representing as to the ability of the new Scottish Parliamentary system to . .
Cited – Procola v Luxembourg ECHR 28-Sep-1995
A dairy association complained of milk quota orders made with retrospective effect under domestic provisions. A regulation had been submitted in draft to the Conseil d’Etat, which had advised that a statute was necessary to give retrospective effect . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Lawal v Northern Spirit Limited HL 19-Jun-2003
Counsel appearing at the tribunal had previously sat as a judge with a tribunal member. The opposing party asserted bias in the tribunal.
Held: The test in Gough should be restated in part so that the court must first ascertain all the . .
Cited – Sengupta v Holmes and Others, Lord Chancellor intervening CA 31-Jul-2002
The appellant had applied for leave to appeal to a single judge, who had refused the application. He appealed and was granted leave by two judges. He then objected when the single judge who had refused leave was included in the panel of judges to . .
Cited – Porter and Weeks v Magill HL 13-Dec-2001
Councillors Liable for Unlawful Purposes Use
The defendant local councillors were accused of having sold rather than let council houses in order to encourage an electorate which would be more likely to be supportive of their political party. They had been advised that the policy would be . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Dimes v Proprietors of Grand Junction Canal and others HL 26-Jun-1852
The Lord Chancellor, Lord Cottenham, owned a substantial shareholding in the defendant canal which was an incorporated body. He sat on appeal from the Vice-Chancellor, whose judgment in favour of the company he affirmed. There was an appeal on the . .
Cited – Millar v Dickson PC 24-Jul-2001
The Board was asked whether the appellants had waived their right to an independent and impartial tribunal under article 6 of the Convention by appearing before the temporary sheriffs without objecting to their hearing their cases on the ground that . .
Cited – In re McKerr CANI 10-Jan-2003
The appellant’s son and two others had been shot dead by police officers. There remained considerable controversy over the circumstances. The matter had been taken to the ECHR which had found the enquiry inadequate. The parties now disputed the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Gillies v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 26-Jan-2006
The claimant said that the medical member of the tribunal which had heard his disability claim was biased. The doctor was on a temporary contract and also worked for an agency which contracted directly the Benfits Agency. The court of session had . .
Cited – King, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 27-Mar-2012
In each case the prisoners challenged their transfer to cellular confinement or segregation within prison or YOI, saying that the transfers infringed their rights under Article 6, saying that domestic law, either in itself or in conjunction with . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.222766

CF v Secretary of State for the Home Department: FD 30 Jan 2004

The court considered the choice or procedures arising in relation to a baby ward of court living with its mother in prison. The sentence to be served would take the child beyond the maximum age provided for in mother and baby units.

Judges:

Munby J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 111 (Fam), [2004] 2 FLR 517

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prison Rules 1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Practice Direction (Family Proceedings: Court Bundles) 10-Mar-2000
There should at be lodged with the court a summary of the background to the hearing; a statement of the issue or issues to be determined; a summary of the order or directions sought by each party; a chronology; and skeleton arguments. . .

Cited by:

Cited – E v Channel Four, News International Ltd and St Helens Borough Council FD 1-Jun-2005
The applicant sought an order restraining publication by the defendants of material, saying she did not have capacity to consent to the publication. She suffered a multiple personality disorder. She did herself however clearly wish the film to be . .
Cited – Re 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.

Family, Litigation Practice, Prisons

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231166

Scordino v Italy: ECHR 29 Jul 2004

(French Text) Grand Chamber. In the context of unreasonable delay in violation of article 6(1), there was a strong but rebuttable presumption that excessively long proceedings would occasion non-pecuniary damage.

Citations:

(2006) 45 EHRR 207, 36813/97, [2004] ECHR 412

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Citing:

See Also – Scordino v Italy (No. 2) ECHR 15-Jul-2004
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Faulkner, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another SC 1-May-2013
The applicants had each been given a life sentence, but having served the minimum term had been due to have the continued detention reviewed to establish whether or not continued detention was necessary for the protection of the pblic. It had not . .
See Also – Scordino v Italy (3) ECHR 17-May-2005
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of P1-1; Just satisfaction reserved. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons, Damages

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.230579

Regina (Coleman) v Governor of Wayland Prison: QBD 3 Apr 2009

The prisoner complained that his mobile phone having been confiscated, the governor had sought its destruction.
Held: It was not open to the governor to destroy the prisoner’s property. The decision in Duggan made the governor’s interpretation of rule 43 unsustainable.

Judges:

Dobbs J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1005 (Admin), Times 23-Apr-2009

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prison Rules 1999 (1999 No 728) 43(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Duggan v Governor of Full Sutton Prison and Another CA 10-Feb-2004
The prisoner had money removed and kept for him on entry to prison. Upon release he claimed that the money had been held in trust, and should have been invested for some return. He appealed a finding that the money had been held simply as a debt . .
Distinguished – AVX v EGM Solders Ltd QBD 1-Jul-1982
The defendants had agreed to the return of defective spheres of solder which they had manufactured for the plaintiffs. By mistake, as well as returning the defective solder in one box, the plaintiffs returned twenty-one boxes of capacitors which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.341217

Hirst, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another: Admn 21 Jun 2005

Challenge to recall of lifer to prison after release on licence.

Judges:

Crane J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1480 (Admin), Times 04-Jul-2005

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Hirst v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 6-Jul-2006
The prisoner had been released on licence but then recalled. He complained that the procedure infringed his human rights. He had been convicted of manslaughter, and was seen to be a long term danger. The court awarded him compensation saying that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228896

Martinez Sala And Others v Spain: ECHR 2 Nov 2004

ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – No violation of Art. 3 regarding the allegations of ill-treatments; Violation of Art. 3 regarding the lack of effective investigation; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.
ECHR Court found that the Spanish authorities had failed to carry out an effective official investigation into the applicants’ allegations that they were ill-treated in police custody when arrested in the summer of 1992, shortly before the Olympic Games in Barcelona, in connection with an investigation into terrorist offences.
No violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment)
Violation of Article 3 (investigation)

Citations:

58438/00, [2004] ECHR 582

Links:

Wordlii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Judgment – Martinez Sala And Others v Spain ECHR 8-Aug-2011
Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227731

Wright, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 30 Nov 2004

Request for judicial review of refusal to pay compensation for wrongful detention in prison after end of sentence.

Judges:

Bennett J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 3084 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Human Rights, Prisons, Damages

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.226917

Osborn v The Parole Board: Admn 19 Mar 2010

The claimants complained that decisions had been made by the respondents without them having been first given a right to an oral hearing. They now sought permission to bring judicial review.
Held: Permission was refused. The facts in the appellant’s case were only minimally in contention, that the focus of the appellant’s letter had been on matters which were peripheral to the decision made, and that the bulk of the letter indicated a desire to ask questions about matters of fact which were not in dispute and did not have any relevance to the risk to the public on re-release.

Judges:

Langstaff J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 580 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Waite v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-Dec-2002
The claimant had been sentenced to be detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure when a youth. After release on licence, the Parole Board met and revoked that licence without an oral hearing, and in contravention of the rules. He did not dispute the facts . .
Cited – Regina v Parole Board ex parte Smith, Regina v Parole Board ex parte West (Conjoined Appeals) HL 27-Jan-2005
Each defendant challenged the way he had been treated on revocation of his parole licence, saying he should have been given the opportunity to make oral representations.
Held: The prisoners’ appeals were allowed.
Lord Bingham stated: . .

Cited by:

At first instance – Osborn v The Parole Board SC 9-Oct-2013
Three prisoners raised questions as to the circumstances in which the Parole Board is required to hold an oral hearing before making an adverse decision. One of the appeals (Osborn) concerned a determinate sentence prisoner who was released on . .
Appeal from – Osborn and Another v The Parole Board CA 15-Dec-2010
The three claimants complained that the respondent had made decisions adverse to them as to their release to or recall from parole.
Held: Review was refused. While there was ‘some force in the submission that, contrary to the understanding of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.403379

Williams v The Secretary of State for the Home Office: CA 17 Apr 2002

The applicant was a post-tariff discretionary life prisoner, applying for a change in his security classification. He sought disclosure of his security report which was denied by the respondent. He alleged a breach of his human rights.
Held: The punitive part of the sentence was complete. The earlier panel had advised his reclassification from security risk A, but that had not been followed. He was required to demonstrate positive reasons for re-classification, but was not told what circumstances justified maintenance of his classification. The committee which considered his possible release served a different purpose to one which considered his classification. Full disclosure was ordered.
The Parole Board is concerned with assessing risk in the context of someone who is lawfully released and subject to continuing monitoring and control. Furthermore, there are incentives to behave, since in the event of non-compliance the licence is revocable.

Judges:

Lord Phillips Master of the Rolls, Judge LJ

Citations:

Times 01-May-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 498, [2002] 1 WLR 2264, [2002] 4 All ER 872

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights Art 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – Regina (Burgess) v Home Secretary 2000
The applicant challenged the refusal to move him to open conditions within the prison system.
Held: ‘Article 5(4) does not . . preclude the Secretary of State from taking a different view than the Discretionary Life Panel of the Parole Board . .

Cited by:

Cited – Lord, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 1-Sep-2003
The claimant was a category A prisoner serving a sentence of life imprisonment for murder. He sought the reasons for his categorisation as a Class A prisoner. Unhappy at the disclosure made, he sought information under the 1998 Act. It was argued . .
Cited – Regina (on the Application of Cawser) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 5-Nov-2003
The claimant was serving a prison sentence for serious sexual offences. He would not be released until he had completed a sex offenders programme, but one was not made available, delaying his release.
Held: ‘The Secretary of State is not under . .
Cited – Roberts, Regina (on the Application of) v The Parole Board Admn 7-Nov-2008
The prisoner was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of three police officers in 1966. He served a longer time than the recommended minimum and had been transferred to an open prison anticipating release on licence. He now complained of . .
Cited – Roberts, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 12-Mar-2004
The claimant complained at a decision not to reduce his Category A status to that of a category B prisoner. He continued to maintain his innocence of the murders for which he had been convicted. He was therefore ineligible to take part in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.170143

Regina (Chester) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another: QBD 28 Oct 2009

The claimant a prisoner detained after the expiry of his lfe sentence tariff as dangerous, sought a declaration that the refusal to allow him to register as a voter in prison infringed his human rights.
Held: Such a claim had already succeeded in Scotland, and before the ECHR, and the government was considering how it should meet the finding. The consultation suggested that a prisoner of the category of the claimant would remain excluded. In such circumstances, it would be wrong to consider making a futher declaration of incompatibility pending the outcome of the legislation. Legislation would come before any anticipate European election, and a declaration would be parasitic on the declaration in Smith. It would be offensive to constitutional principles to issue a declaration as a means of placing pressure on the way Parliament conducted its business.

Judges:

Burton J

Citations:

Times 03-Nov-2009

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights, Representation of the People Act 1983, European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Hirst v United Kingdom (2) ECHR 6-Oct-2005
(Grand Chamber) The applicant said that whilst a prisoner he had been banned from voting. The UK operated with minimal exceptions, a blanket ban on prisoners voting.
Held: Voting is a right not a privilege. It was a right central in a . .
Cited – Bellinger v Bellinger HL 10-Apr-2003
Transgender Male to Female not to marry as Female
The parties had gone through a form of marriage, but Mrs B had previously undergone gender re-assignment surgery. Section 11(c) of the 1973 Act required a marriage to be between a male and a female. It was argued that the section was incompatible . .
Cited – Wheeler, Regina (on the Application of) v Office of the Prime Minister and Another Admn 25-Jun-2008
The claimant sought to challenge the decision by respondent not to offer a referendum before acceding to the Treaty of Lisbon. The claimant’s case was that the Government’s promise to hold a referendum in relation to the European Union . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights, Elections, Constitutional

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.377519

The Home Office v Wainwright and Wainwright: CA 20 Dec 2001

The claimants were awarded damages, following the way they were searched on seeking to enter prison on a visit. The Home Office appealed. They were asked to sign a consent form, but only after the search was nearly complete. They were told the prison officers had a right to conduct the search. The actions had occurred before the Human Rights Act came into force. There had been considerable uncertainty as to whether the Human Rights Act 1998 can apply retrospectively in situations where the conduct complained of occurred before the Act came into force. Case law had not decided whether s3 could operate retrospectively, but it did not. There appeared no intention of the prison officers to cause harm or distress, and no Wilkinson v Downton action was available to the claimant. Any consent was only to a search conducted properly. Claims other than for battery were dismissed. There is no tort of invasion of privacy, but only separate torts protecting body and property. The germ of a tort of breach of privacy all lay in the law of confidence. No element of confidence was involved here

Judges:

Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Buxton

Citations:

Times 04-Jan-2002, Gazette 27-Feb-2002, [2001] EWCA Civ 2081, [2002] QB 1334, [2003] 3 All ER 943, [2002] 3 WLR 405

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998 3 22(4), Prison Act 1952 47, Prison Rules 1964 (1964 No 388) 86(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Lambert HL 5-Jul-2001
Restraint on Interference with Burden of Proof
The defendant had been convicted for possessing drugs found on him in a bag when he was arrested. He denied knowing of them. He was convicted having failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he had not known of the drugs. The case was . .
Cited – Regina v Kansal (2) HL 29-Nov-2001
The prosecutor had lead and relied at trial on evidence obtained by compulsory questioning under the 1986 Act.
Held: In doing so the prosecutor was acting to give effect to section 433.
The decision in Lambert to disallow retrospective . .
Limited – Wilkinson v Downton 8-May-1997
Thomas Wilkinson, the landlord of a public house, went off by train, leaving his wife Lavinia behind the bar. A customer of the pub, Downton played a practical joke on her. He told her, falsely, that her husband had been involved in an accident and . .
Cited – Douglas, Zeta Jones, Northern and Shell Plc v Hello! Limited (No 1) CA 21-Dec-2000
The first two claimants sold exclusive rights to photograph their wedding to the third claimant. A paparrazzi infiltrated the wedding and then sold his unauthorised photographs to the defendants, who now appealed injunctions restraining them from . .

Cited by:

Cited – Parochial Church Council of the Parish of Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote with Billesley, Warwickshire v Wallbank and another HL 26-Jun-2003
Parish Councils are Hybrid Public Authorities
The owners of glebe land were called upon as lay rectors to contribute to the cost of repairs to the local church. They argued that the claim was unlawful by section 6 of the 1998 Act as an act by a public authority incompatible with a Convention . .
Cited – Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) HL 10-Jul-2003
The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent lender of its . .
Appeal from – Wainwright and another v Home Office HL 16-Oct-2003
The claimant and her son sought to visit her other son in Leeds Prison. He was suspected of involvement in drugs, and therefore she was subjected to strip searches. There was no statutory support for the search. The son’s penis had been touched . .
Cited – Oxfordshire County Council v Oxford City Council and others HL 24-May-2006
Application had been made to register as a town or village green an area of land which was largely a boggy marsh. The local authority resisted the application wanting to use the land instead for housing. It then rejected advice it received from a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Torts – Other, Human Rights, Personal Injury

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.167463

Spinks, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 28 Jan 2005

May LJ said that if the State was in breach of its Article 3 obligations, that had to be remedied. If the only way to remedy was to release the prisoner, then the Secretary of State for Justice would be obliged to order his immediate release.

Judges:

May, Buxton, Sedley LJJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 275

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Qazi and Another CACD 4-Nov-2010
The defendant appealed against sentence, saying that given his serious medical condition, any imprisonment would threaten his human rights.
Held: The court set out the law. A court imposing a sentence should not concern itself with the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223681

Home Office v Bailey and others: CA 22 Mar 2005

Prison officers claimed awards for sex discrimination. The employer replied that the pools of comparators each contained members of either sex. The appellants sought to establish that any less favourable treatment of them in comparison with the comparators was genuinely due to a material factor which is not the difference of sex and which is a material difference. The Home Office did not accept that it was obliged by s. 1 (3) of the 1970 Act objectively to justify any such difference.
Held: Lord Justice Peter Gibson: ‘the ET is concerned to determine whether what on its face is a gender-neutral practice may be disguising the fact that female employees are being disadvantaged as compared with male employees to an extent that signifies that the disparity is prima facie attributable to a difference of sex. ‘ there was ‘no justification for the imposition of a high threshold for satisfying the test of prima facie discrimination. ‘ Lord Justice Waller: ‘where a difference in pay is established, and statistics seem to indicate a possibility of a disproportionate impact on women when looking at both the advantaged and disadvantaged groups as a whole, those statistics must provide sufficient evidence to get those carrying the burden over the hurdle of placing the onus on the employer to show that there were material factors which were not the difference in sex. ‘

Judges:

Peter Gibson LJ

Citations:

Times 08-Apr-2005, [2005] EWCA Civ 327

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Equal Pay Act 1970

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – The Home Office v A Bailey and others EAT 2-Jul-2004
EAT Equal Pay Act – Material factor defence
The EAT allowed an appeal by the Home Office from a decision of an Employment Tribunal which had determined as a preliminary issue that the Home Office was . .
Cited – Glasgow City Council and Others v Marshall and Others HL 8-Feb-2000
Although instructors in special schools, carried out work of a broadly similar nature to qualified teachers, and the majority were women, they were not entitled to an equality of pay clause, since there was no evidence of sex discrimination, and the . .
Cited – Nelson v Carillion Services Ltd CA 15-Apr-2003
The appellant challenged dismissal of her claim for equal pay. It had been rejected on the ground that the employer had shown a material factor justifying the difference in pay.
Held: Enderby establishes that the burden of proving sex . .
Cited – Enderby v Frenchay Health Authority and Another ECJ 27-Oct-1993
Discrimination – Shifting Burden of Proof
(Preliminary Ruling) A woman was employed as a speech therapist by the health authority. She complained of sex discrimination saying that at her level of seniority within the NHS, members of her profession which was overwhelmingly a female . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State For Employment Ex Parte Seymour-Smith and Another (No 2) HL 17-Feb-2000
Although fewer men were affected by the two year qualifying period before becoming entitled not to be dismissed unfairly, the difference was objectively justified by the need to encourage employers to take staff on, and was not directly derived from . .
Cited – Barry v Midland Bank Plc HL 22-Jul-1999
The defendant implemented a voluntary retirement scheme under which benefits were calculated according to the period of service of the employee. The plaintiff claimed that the scheme discriminated against workers who had taken career breaks, and . .

Cited by:

See Also – The Home Office v A Bailey and others EAT 2-Nov-2005
EAT Practice and Procedure: Permission to Appeal Further and Costs
Test for granting/refusing permission to appeal. Whether power to make partial order for costs. . .
Cited – South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council v Anderson and others EAT 26-Mar-2007
The council appealed a finding that there was no genuine material factor justifying a difference in pay, and in particular the availability of bonus schemes. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Discrimination

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223778

Regina 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 obey a lawful order. The charges were found proved by the deputy governor, who imposed a penalty of two additional days on one of the men together with various other penalties, and penalties not involving additional days on the second man. The second man was a lifer; the first was not. The Secretary of State upheld the decisions and judicial review was refused.
Held: The Court dismissed the appeals.
Lord Woolf CJ said: ‘In the case of Mr Fitzgerald’s clients, the nature of the offence and the severity of the penalty actually imposed for the offence point in our judgment uncontestedly to the conclusion that no criminal charge is involved. Mr Fitzgerald argued that the nature of the proceedings is a more satisfactory second criterion but we do not accept this gloss improves on the Engel approach. We are concerned as to whether a criminal charge is involved. The nature of the offence was essentially disciplinary. Furthermore, the penalty which was imposed in the case of Mr Carroll, did involve additional days but additional days of a very limited number and not an additional sentence of imprisonment. It is true that the rule potentially provided for 42 additional days being imposed but as a matter of practice anything other than a small number of additional days would have been set aside as inappropriate for an offence of disobeying an order. We therefore have no hesitation in confirming the detailed and clear reasoning of Newman J for saying that Mr Fitzgerald’s clients were not subject to a criminal charge.’

Judges:

Lord Woolf CJ, Tuckey and Arden LJJ

Citations:

[2002] 1 WLR 545, [2001] EWCA Civ 1224, [2001] HRLR 58

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal From – 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 . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – 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 . .
Cited – Al-Hasan, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Feb-2005
Prisoners were disciplined after refusing to be squat searched, saying that the procedure was humiliating and that there were no reasonable grounds to suspect them of any offence against prison discipline. The officer who had been involved in . .
Cited – Tangney v The Governor of HMP Elmley and Another CA 29-Jul-2005
The claimant was a serving a life sentence. During prison disciplinary proceedings he was refused legal and other assistance, and an outside tribunal on the basis that since any finding would not lead to any loss of remission or extra time, his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Administrative

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222931

Secretary of State for the Home Department v SP: CA 21 Dec 2004

The applcant, a girl aged 17 was in a young offender institution. She complained that she had been removed to segregation without first giving her chance to be heard. The respondent argued that there were sufficient post decision safeguards to ensure fairness.
Held: Modern standards of fairnesss required that she be given opportunity to be heard before the decision was taken. This did not require more than an opportunity to comment on the tentative reasons for making an order. The regime to which she was moved was substantially different. Fair treatment is part of the retributive process.
The Court emphasised both the instrumental value of enabling persons to participate in decision-making when they may be able to contribute relevant information or to test other information before the decision-maker, and the ethical value of allowing persons to participate in decision-making which concerns them and is liable to have a significant effect on their rights or interests, where they may have something to say which is relevant to the decision to be taken

Judges:

Ward, Jacob, Hooper LJJ

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1750, Times 21-Jan-2005

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Wiseman v Borneman HL 1971
The House was asked whether natural justice required that there be an oral hearing of a determination by a tax tribunal of whether there was a prima facie case.
Held: A refusal to examine evidence submitted to a tribunal initially when there . .
Cited – Regina (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 . .
Cited – Lloyd 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 – Regina (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 23-May-2001
A prison policy requiring prisoners not to be present when their property was searched and their mail was examined was unlawful. The policy had been introduced after failures in search procedures where officers had been intimidated by the presence . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department Ex Parte Hickey and Others, Same Ex Parte Bamber; Same Ex Parte Malone (No 2) QBD 29-Nov-1994
The Home Secretary is obliged to disclose new evidence to a defendant before rejecting his application for a reference to Court of Appeal. The Home Secretary’s powers to refer a case back to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) was an integral . .
Cited – Regina v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison, Ex parte Hague, Weldon v Home Office QBD 1990
A prisoner challenged the decision that he should be segregated under rule 43.
Held: Ralph Gibson LJ said: ‘In this case Mr Sedley acknowledged that there could not be an unqualified obligation in all cases upon the governor to allow the right . .
Cited – Regina v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison, Ex parte Hague CA 5-Jun-1990
A decision to segregate a prisoner under rule 43 is to be made by the governor of the prison where he is held. Taylor LJ said: ‘Apart from the urgency of decisions under r 43, there may well be other public policy grounds for not giving reasons in . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Life Assurance Unit Trust Regulatory Authority Organisation Ltd, ex parte Ross 1993
There are circumstances where it is not possible to allow representations to be made before the decision, in which case they should be allowed afterwards. . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody and Others HL 25-Jun-1993
A mandatory lifer is to be permitted to suggest the period of actual sentence to be served. The Home Secretary must give reasons for refusing a lifer’s release. What fairness requires in any particular case is ‘essentially an intuitive judgment’, . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Mehmet and O’Connor Admn 9-Feb-1999
Prisoners challenged their detention within Close Supervision Centres, saying that fairness required they be told the reasons and be given the opportunity to make representations against the decision.
Held: Fairness did not require an . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another, Ex Parte Allen CA 10-Mar-2000
No right arose in favour of a prisoner to see the document upon which a decision to refuse him early release under a home detention and curfew scheme had been made, nor to make representations before completion of the assessment. No procedural . .
Cited – Regina (Hirst) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 8-Mar-2001
The prisoner had been re-categorised and transferred to a higher category prison.
Held: A life sentence serving prisoner, who had served the tariff period, and was moving into the period of discretionary detention, was entitled to be informed . .

Cited by:

Cited – King, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 27-Mar-2012
In each case the prisoners challenged their transfer to cellular confinement or segregation within prison or YOI, saying that the transfers infringed their rights under Article 6, saying that domestic law, either in itself or in conjunction with . .
Cited – Bourgass and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 29-Jul-2015
The Court considered the procedures when a prisoner is kept in solitary confinement, otherwise described as ‘segregation’ or ‘removal from association’, and principally whether decisions to keep the appellants in segregation for substantial periods . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.220667

Miah, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Home Department: Admn 22 Jul 2004

The prisoner had been sentenced but then transferred to a secure mental hospital. Whilst there be acted in a way equivalent to a hostage taking.
Held: Upon his release from the mental hospital the powers as to recall under the prison sentence remained intact, and he was properly returned to prison.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

Times 10-Sep-2004, [2004] EWHC 2569 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1983 47

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons, Health

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219528

Francis and Another, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another: Admn 30 Jul 2004

Each prisoner had been released on licence but then recalled after charged with further crimes. They made representations to the Home Secretary which were rejected. After being acquitted of the respective offences, they sought to make further representations.
Held: The representations were as to the way in which the decision to recall them had been made, and not to the reasons underlying it. Accordingly whilst circumstances might arise in which further representations would be properly accepted by the respondent, those circumstances would be limited again to the way the decision had been taken. Here the representations against a recall were in reality as to the continuing propriety of their detention, and were not to be accepted in this form. In any event the decision as to whether to accept representations lay with the respondent.

Citations:

Times 12-Oct-2004, [2004] EWHC 2143 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218718

Pearson and Another v Secretary of State for Home Department and Another: CA 18 Jun 2001

The claimants sought leave to appeal against rejection of their complaint that as serving prisoners they were unable to vote.

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ VP

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 927

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Human Rights, Prisons, Constitutional, Elections

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218256