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 been, and each had claimed there was no basis for his continued detention, and sought damages. In one case the Secretary now appealed against the level of damages awarded, and in the other the prisoner appealed against the quashing of the damages award.
Held: Though an appellate court should not normally interfere in a damages assessment because it would have set a different figure, in this case it was being asked to set guideline figures. The proper figure in Falkner’s case was andpound;6,500.
A delay in the review after the completion of the minimum term was not tortious false imprisonment, and would only amont to a breach of article 5(1) in exceptional circumstances. Damages under section 8 of the 1998 Act should follow Greenfield, and ‘First, at the present stage of the development of the remedy of damages under section 8 of the 1998 Act, courts should be guided, following Greenfield, primarily by any clear and consistent practice of the European court. Secondly, it should be borne in mind that awards by the European court reflect the real value of money in the country in question. The most reliable guidance as to the quantum of awards under section 8 will therefore be awards made by the European court in comparable cases brought by applicants from the UK or other countries with a similar cost of living. Thirdly, courts should resolve disputed issues of fact in the usual way even if the European court, in similar circumstances, would not do so. ‘
The ordinary approach to the relationship between domestic law and the Convention was that the courts endeavour to apply and if need be develop the common law, and interpret and apply statutory provisions, so as to arrive at a result which is in compliance with the UK’s international obligations, the starting point being our own legal principles rather than the judgments of the international court.
The Court considered the differences in practice and law between national and European Court decisions on damages, saying: ‘First, at the present stage of the development of the remedy of damages under section 8 of the 1998 Act, courts should be guided, following Greenfield, primarily by any clear and consistent practice of the European court. Secondly, it should be borne in mind that awards by the European court reflect the real value of money in the country in question. The most reliable guidance as to the quantum of awards under section 8 will therefore be awards made by the European court in comparable cases brought by applicants from the UK or other countries with a similar cost of living. Thirdly, courts should resolve disputed issues of fact in the usual way even if the European court, in similar circumstances, would not do so. ‘
. . And ‘awards where detention has been prolonged for several months, as the result of a violation of article 5(4), could reasonably be expected to be significantly above awards for frustration and anxiety alone, but well below the level of awards for a loss of unrestricted liberty. It is however impossible to derive any precise guidance from these awards. In accordance with section 8(1) and (4), a judgment has to be made by domestic courts as to what is just and appropriate in the individual case, taking into account such guidance as is available from awards made by the European court, or by domestic courts under section 8 of the 1998 Act, in comparable cases. ‘
Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath
[2013] UKSC 23, [2013] WLR(D) 162, [2013] 2 WLR 1157, UKSC 2011/0156, UKSC 2011/0124, [2013] 2 AC 254, 35 BHRC 378, [2013] 2 All ER 1013, [2013] HRLR 24
Bailii, WLRD, SC Summary, SC, Bailii Summary
European Convention on Human Rights 5, Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 2, Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 109, Criminal Justice Act 2003 225, Human Rights Act 1998 8
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Weeks v The United Kingdom ECHR 5-Oct-1988
The Court was asked as to the recall to prison of a prisoner who had been released on licence. His recall and subsequent detention were considered by the Board, but under the system then in place it could only make a non-binding recommendation. . .
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 – 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 . .
Cited – Greenfield, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Feb-2005
The appellant had been charged with and disciplined for a prison offence. He was refused legal assistance at his hearing, and it was accepted that the proceedings involved the determination of a criminal charge within the meaning of article 6 of the . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Justice v James HL 6-May-2009
The applicant had been sentenced to an indefinite term for public protection, but the determinate part of his sentence had passed with no consideration as to whether his continued detention was required.
Held: The post tariff detention was not . .
Cited – Bezicheri v Italy ECHR 25-Oct-1989
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-4; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses – claim rejected . .
Cited – Cesky v The Czech Republic ECHR 6-Jun-2000
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-3; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award – domestic proceedings; . .
Cited – Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
Cited – Denizci And Others v Cyprus ECHR 23-May-2001
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Struck out of the list in respect of Aziz Marthoca; No violation of Art. 2; Violation of Art. 3; Violation of Art. 5; . .
Cited – Rutten v The Netherlands ECHR 24-Jul-2001
The claimant prisoner complained of the delay in his release, awaiting a review. Domestic court proceedings had lasted two and a half months at first instance and a further three months on appeal. The proceedings had been brought by the public . .
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 . .
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 . .
At First Instance – Faulkner, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another Admn 5-Jun-2009
The claimant had sought to challenge his continued detention in prison when his situation should have been reviewed but had not been. As a lifer he had served the time set in his tariff.
Held: The applicant was unlawfully at large and had not . .
Main Appeal (Faulkner) – Faulkner, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice The Parole Board CA 14-Dec-2010
The claimant sought damages saying that his detention in prison beyond the minimum period pending a review was unlawful when that review was delayed. He now appealed against dismissal of his claim when he had not appeared at court, being unlawfully . .
At first Instance – Sturnham, Regina (on The Application of) v Parole Board, Secretary of State for Justice Admn 14-Mar-2011
S was serving a term of life imprisonment. After serving the tariff, his detention should have been reviewed. After several serious delays, and a decision that he should instead be transferred to open conditions, he brought proceedings for judicial . .
Cited – Guntrip, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another Admn 9-Dec-2010
The claimant prisoner should have had his detention reviewed after serving the tariff part of his sentence. He sought damages for the delay. The first hearing before the Board, following the expiry of the tariff, had not taken place until about two . .
Cited – Faulkner, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice The Parole Board CA 29-Mar-2011
The court considered the approriate level of damages where the claimant’s detention had been wrongly extended through a failure to hold a timely review of his continued detention.
Held: A sum of andpound;10,000 was awarded. The court should . .
Cited – James, Wells and Lee v The United Kingdom ECHR 18-Sep-2012
ECHR Article 5-1
Deprivation of liberty
Failure to provide the rehabilitative courses to prisoners which were necessary for their release: violation
Facts – By virtue of section 225 of the . .
Cited – Niedbala v Poland ECHR 4-Jul-2000
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 5-4; Violation of Art. 8; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award
A warrant . .
Cited – Migon v Poland ECHR 25-Jun-2002
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-4; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) – claim rejected
‘In the present case, . .
Cited – K B and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal and Another Admn 13-Feb-2003
The claimants were entitled to damages for their detention as mental patients, where this had been found to be wrongful as an infringement of their human rights. The court considered the appropriate level of damages.
Held: There was no clear . .
Cited – Al-Jedda v United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-2011
Grand Chamber – The international measure relied on by the respondent state had to be interpreted in a manner that minimised the extent to which arbitrary detention was sanctioned or required.
The court described its role in settling awards of . .
Cited – Rabone and Another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation SC 8-Feb-2012
The claimant’s daughter had committed suicide whilst on home leave from a hospital where she had stayed as a voluntary patient with depression. Her admission had followed a suicide attempt. The hospital admitted negligence but denied that it owed . .
Appeal from – Sturnham v Secretary of State for Justice CA 23-Feb-2012
The claimant life sentence prisoner had inter alia been detained after the expiry of his tarriff pending a review of whether his continued detention was required for public protection. That review had been delayed, and the claimant was awarded . .
Cited – Van Droogenbroeck v Belgium ECHR 25-Apr-1983
Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Costs and expenses – claim rejected
For an imprisonment to be lawful, the ‘detention’ must result . .
Cited – E v Norway ECHR 29-Aug-1990
The applicant suffered serious brain damage and was an untreatable psychopath. He was convicted of numerous violent offences and sentenced to a period of imprisonment. He was also sentenced to preventive detention under the Norwegian Penal Code, as . .
Cited – Koendjbiharie v The Netherlands ECHR 25-Oct-1990
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-4; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings
Unsuccessful proceedings brought . .
Cited – Pavletic v Slovakia ECHR 22-Jun-2004
ECHR Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objections dismissed (victim, non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) ; Violation of Art. 5-3 ; Violation of Art. 5-4 ; Violation of Art. 5-5 ; No separate . .
Cited – Neumeister v Austria ECHR 7-May-1974
The applicant complained, inter alia, of the length of time he had spent in detention while on remand from 24 February to 12 May 1961, that is, two months and sixteen days, and from 12 July 1962 to 16 September 1964, that is two years, two months . .
Cited – 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. . .
Cited – Scordino v Italy ECHR 29-Mar-2006
Grand Chamber – Unreasonable delay had been found.
Held: There was a strong but rebuttable presumption that excessively long proceedings would occasion non-pecuniary damage. . .
Cited – Johnson v The United Kingdom ECHR 24-Oct-1997
Mr Johnson awaited trial for crimes of violence. He was diagnosed mentally ill, and on conviction made subject to a hospital order, and restricted without limit of time. He made progress, but was not discharged or re-classified. At a fourth tribunal . .
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 – Jecius v Lithuania ECHR 31-Jul-2000
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (six month period); Violation of Art. 5-1 as regards the applicant
The applicant complained of violation of his article 5 rights . .
Cited – HL v United Kingdom ECHR 2004
Patient’s lack of Safeguards was Infringement
The claimant had been detained at a mental hospital as in ‘informal patient’. He was an autistic adult. He had been recommended for release by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, and it was decided that he should be released. He was detained further . .
Cited – Beet And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 1-Mar-2005
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 5-1 with regard to one applicant; Violation of Art. 5-5 with regard to one applicant; Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-c with regard to four applicants; . .
Cited – Kolanis v The United Kingdom ECHR 21-Jun-2005
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – No violation of Art. 5-1-e; Violation of Art. 5-4; Violation of Art. 5-5; No separate issue under Art. 13; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses . .
Cited – Veniosov v Ukraine ECHR 15-Dec-2011
. .
Cited – Blackstock v The United Kingdom ECHR 21-Jun-2005
ECHR 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.
The claimant . .
Cited – Medvedyev And Others v France ECHR 29-Mar-2010
(Grand Chamber) A Cambodian vessel, The Winner, trafficked drugs on the high seas (Cape Verde). It was detected and boarded by the French authorities, detaining the crew on board and took them on the vessel to France for trial. France was, but . .
Cited – Kucheruk v Ukraine ECHR 6-Sep-2007
. .
Cited by:
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 . .
Cited – Haney and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice SC 10-Dec-2014
The four claimants, each serving indeterminate prison sentences, said that as they approached the times when thy might apply for parol, they had been given insufficient support and training to meet the requirements for release. The courts below had . .
Cited – Shahid v Scottish Ministers (Scotland) SC 14-Oct-2015
The appellant convicted of a racially-aggravated vicious murder. Since conviction he had spent almost five years in segregation from other prisoners. The appellant now alleged that some very substantial periods of segregation had been in breach of . .
Cited – Lee-Hirons v Secretary of State for Justice SC 27-Jul-2016
The appellant had been detained in a mental hospital after a conviction. Later released, he was recalled, but he was not given written reasons as required by a DoH circular. However the SS referred the recall immediately to the Tribunal. He appealed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Prisons, Torts – Other, Damages, Human Rights, Constitutional
Leading Case
Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.503500
