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 respondent’s control over the release on licence of prisoners. The reasonableness of his power was to be determined in line with Michalak. The distinction made was potentially subject to the Convention, and this situation had not been anticipated in Giles or Smith. The natural comparators were other also serving determinate sentences. The applicant took part in a similar process of discretionary licences, but the difference in arbiter, in this case the respondent, was a material difference. The seriousness of the offences however justified the differences, and the minister was reasonably involved.

[2004] EWCA Civ 514, Times 13-May-2004, Gazette 20-May-2004, [2004] 3 All ER 338
European Convention on Human Rights 5 14
England and Wales
CitedMichalak v London Borough of Wandsworth CA 6-Mar-2002
The appellant had occupied for a long time a room in a house let by the authority. After the death of the tenant, the appellant sought, but was refused, a statutory tenancy. He claimed to be a member of the tenant’s family, and that the list of . .
Appeal fromRegina on the Application of Clift v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 13-Jun-2003
The claimant had been sentenced to 18 years imprisonment. He challenged the differing treatment for parole purposes of those sentenced to more than 15 years, as infringing his human rights, insofar as the decision was retained by the Home Secretary. . .
CitedRegina on the Application of Giles v Parole Board and Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 4-Jul-2002
The prisoner had been sentenced to a punitive term, and an additional protective term under the Act. After the parole board had decided that he could be released from the punitive part of the sentence, he obtained declaration that the board should . .
CitedGiles, Regina (on the Application of) v Parole Board and Another HL 31-Jul-2003
The defendant had been sentenced for offences of violence, but an additional period was imposed to protect the public. He had been refused leave for reconsideration of that part of his sentence after he completed the normal segment of his sentence. . .
CitedRegina (Smith) v Parole Board (No 2) CA 31-Jul-2003
The applicant having been released on licence had his licence revoked. The decision had been made at a hearing which considered evidence on paper only, which he said was unfair.
Held: The case law had maintained a proper distinction between . .

Cited by:
CitedSecretary of State for the Home Department v Hindawi and Headley CA 13-Oct-2004
The applicant was a foreign national serving a long-term prison sentence. He complained that UK nationals would have had their case referred to the parole board before his.
Held: The right to be referred to the parole board was a statutory . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.196084