The applicant had been released on licence after serving half a six year prison service under a law which permitted the release of a prisoner on licence after serving half his sentence. There was then a series of court hearings which resulted in the order for his release being quashed. He sought to attack aspects of these court hearings.
Held: The claim was manifestly ill-founded. There was nothing to suggest that the link between the original conviction and the re-detention was broken, so that there was no basis for asserting a violation of article 5.1. In rejecting the claim in respect of article 5.4 the court said: ‘The court notes that article 5 ss 4 only applies to proceedings in which the lawfulness of detention is challenged. The necessary supervision of the lawfulness of detention ‘after conviction by a competent court’, as in the present case, is incorporated at the outset in the applicant’s original trial and the appeal procedures against the conviction and sentence (see, the De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v Belgium judgment of 18 June 1971, Series A no 12, p 40, ss 76). It follows that this part of the application is also to be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded pursuant to article 35 ssss 3 and 4 of the Convention.’
47922/99, Unreported, 7 September 1999
Cited – Regina v Parole Board ex parte Smith, Regina v Parole Board ex parte West (Conjoined Appeals) HL 27-Jan-2005
Each defendant challenged the way he had been treated on revocation of his parole licence, saying he should have been given the opportunity to make oral representations.
Held: The prisoners’ appeals were allowed.
Lord Bingham stated: . .
Cited – Black, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice HL 21-Jan-2009
The appellant complained that the system for considering the release of a life prisoner did not comply with the Convention when the decision was made by the Secretary of State and not by the Parole Board, or the court. The Board had recommended his . .
Cited – Whiston, Regina (on The Application of) SC 2-Jul-2014
The claimant, having been released from prison on licence, objected to the procedure whereby his licence was revoked with no means for him to challenge that decision.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Article 5(4) did not apply to the particular . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.280272