Clift v The United Kingdom: ECHR 30 Apr 2009

Mr Clift was serving a sentence of 18 years’ imprisonment for very serious crimes, including attempted murder, and complained that the early release provisions in respect of his sentence gave rise to a violation of article 14. The House of Lords held that Mr Clift’s classification, as a long-term prisoner serving a determinate sentence of 15 years or more, did not amount to an ‘other status’, and accordingly there was no infringement of article 14.
Held: The ECtHR took the contrary view, holding that Mr Clift did come within article 14 and that there was no objective justification for the different release provisions applied to prisoners in his category.
7205/07, [2009] ECHR 718
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Citing:
See Also (HL)Clift, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 13-Dec-2006
The claimants were former serving prisoners who complained that the early release provisions discriminated against them unjustifiably. Each was subject to a deportation requirement, and said that in their cases the control on the time for their . .

Cited by:
CitedYoung, Regina (on The Application of) v Governor of Her Majesty’s Prison Highdown and Another Admn 6-Apr-2011
The claimant complained that he had not been considered for early release on Home Detention Curfew because the policy refused to allow those convicted of knife crimes to be so considered, and: ‘the failure to include other offences in the list of . .
See AlsoClift v The United Kingdom ECHR 13-Jul-2010
Mr Clift had been sentenced in England to a term of imprisonment of 18 years for crimes including attempted murder. The Parole Board recommended his release on licence once he had served half of his sentence. The Secretary of State rejected its . .
CitedStott, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 28-Nov-2018
The prisoner was subject to an extended determinate sentence (21 years plus 4) for 10 offences of rape. He complained that as such he would only be eligible for parole after serving two thirds of his sentence rather than one third, and said that . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 October 2021; Ref: scu.341989