Hall v United Kingdom: ECHR 12 Nov 2013

The claimant had been imprisoned for sexual offences. Whilst in prison as an IPP prisoner, and after completion of his tariff, he completed courses required to assist his treatment and demonstrate his improvement, there was an undue delay in his release.
Held: The ECtHR was therefore prepared to look at the matter overall, and to accept that no system is likely to be able to avoid some periods of waiting and delay, especially for a highly intensive course such as the ESOTP. Similarly, a delay from 1 March 2012 when transfer to open conditions was recommended by the Parole Board (or from 20 March 2012 when the Secretary of State accepted the recommendation, saying that such a transfer was envisaged in about three months) until July 2012, when transfer actually occurred was not regarded as unreasonable.

Ineta Ziemele, P
24712/12, [2013] ECHR 1369
European Convention on Human Rights
Cited by:
CitedHaney 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.539936