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 large.
Held: The appeal was allowed: ‘(1) Mr Faulkner had suffered a breach of article 5(4) lasting for a period of 10 months, between March 2008 and January 2009, due to unjustified delays on the part of the Ministry of Justice. There had not been any unjustified delay by the Board in setting the hearing date, once all the reports were available.
(2) There was no reason in this case to award damages for a breach of article 5(4) on the basis of a loss of a real chance of earlier release. Rather, it was necessary for Mr Faulkner to show that he would have been released earlier if the breach had not occurred.
(3) Mr Faulkner had shown on the balance of probabilities that he would have been released if the review had taken place in about March 2008.
(4) As a result of the breach of article 5(4), Mr Faulkner had spent some 10 months in prison when he ought not to have done.’
The question of damages was reseerved.
Judges:
Hooper, Sedley, Wilson LJJ
Citations:
[2010] EWCA Civ 1434
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 5.4
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – 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 . .
Cited by:
Main Appeal – 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 . .
Main Appeal (Faulkner) – Faulkner, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another SC 1-May-2013
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Prisons, Human Rights
Updated: 28 August 2022; Ref: scu.427173
