A prisoner was sentenced to be detained during her majesty’s pleasure, but given a tariff which expired in 1987. Reviews of his continued detention did not lead to his release. He complained that the system of reviews by a Parole Board whose recommendations for release were subject to approval by the Home Secretary did not allow his detention to be reviewed by a court with the power to order his release. This was a breach of his rights, as also was the absence of any system for compensating him.
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-4; Violation of Art. 5-5; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
Times 05-Apr-2000, 32340/96,  ECHR 122,  ECHR 122, (2001) 31 EHRR 14,  Prison LR 65, (2000) 31 EHRR 401
Judgment – Curley v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-Mar-2011
(Execution of judgment) – Examination closed on satisfaction . .
Cited – Osborn v The Parole Board SC 9-Oct-2013
Three prisoners raised questions as to the circumstances in which the Parole Board is required to hold an oral hearing before making an adverse decision. One of the appeals (Osborn) concerned a determinate sentence prisoner who was released on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79714