The claimant sought damages. He had been released from prison and recalled, but the review of his continued detention was not undertaken as it should have been. The defendant said that the acknowledgement and apology were sufficient just satisfaction. The claimant wanted damages.
Held: The delay did not go as to his release, but ony as to a move to open conditions, and it could not be said that any eventual release would have been delayed. As to the feelings of frustration and distress, it was established that to found such a claim the frustration felt must be particularly acute. ‘I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the breach of Article 5(4) will have extended the period that the Claimant has to spend in custody. I am not satisfied that the Claimant has suffered the sort of frustration or anxiety that merits an award of damages and accordingly the claim for damages fails.’
Saunders J
[2010] EWHC 137 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Nikolova v Bulgaria ECHR 25-Mar-1999
(Grand Chamber) The claimant had been detained for long periods after coming under suspicion of theft of large sums. Her detention had initially been ordered by prosecutors. Her initial appeals against her detention were also decided by prosecutors. . .
Cited – Betteridge, Regina (On the Application of) v the Parole Board Admn 23-Jun-2009
Application was made for damages after a wrongful delay in the prisoner’s release.
Held: Collins J urged practitioners not to pursue actions which are ‘not likely to achieve any sensible redress’. Claims in damages cannot be brought unless it . .
Cited – Regina (on the application of Downing) v The Parole Board Admn 2008
The claimant sought damages after a delay in his parole board hearing was said to have delayed his release.
Held: The court identified four factors affecting the level of damages which might be awarded: The length of the delay, the effect of . .
Cited – KB and Others, Regina (on the Applications of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal Admn 23-Apr-2002
Damages were claimed by three mental health patients whose rights under Article 5(4) had been infringed because of inordinate delay in processing their claims to mental health review tribunals.
Held: Article 5.5 did not make an award of . .
Cited – Oldham v The United Kingdom ECHR 26-Sep-2000
Where a parole board took two years to consider the applicant’s parole, this was unreasonable, and a breach of the Article 5.4 requirement to deal with such matters speedily. Accordingly the continued detention of the applicant became unlawful. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Prisons, Human Rights
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.396591
