swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Prisons - From: 1996 To: 1996
This page lists 16 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Watson, Regina (on the Application of) v Parole Board [1996] EWCA Civ 1321; [1996] 2 All ER 641; [1997] COD 72; [1996] 1 WLR 906,
4 Mar 1996
CA
Sir Thomas Bingham MR
Prisons
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Parole Board Ex Parte Mansell Times, 21 March 1996
21 Mar 1996
QBD
Criminal Sentencing, Prisons
A prisoner serving an extended sentence for a sex crime had no right to an oral Parole hearing.
Criminal Justice Act 1991 2(2)(b)
In the Matter of Nixon and Marshall In the Matter of Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum [1996] EWHC Admin 27
10 Jul 1996
Admn
Prisons, Criminal Practice
Custody time limits.
Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Hussey [1996] EWHC Admin 33
15 Jul 1996
Admn
Prisons
Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Taylor-Sabori [1996] EWHC Admin 64
21 Aug 1996
Admn
Carnwath J
Prisons
Challenge to prisoners altered classification as category A prisoner.
Prison Act 1952 47
Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department and Governor of HM Prison Risley ex parte Tremayne; CA 3-Oct-1996 - [1996] EWCA Civ 654
Regina v Governor of Brixton Prison and Government of Switzerland ex parte Gittens [1996] EWHC Admin 100
10 Oct 1996
Admn
Prisons
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Grimsby and Cleethorpes Justices (ex parte Kenneth John Walters) Times, 14 November 1996; [1996] EWHC Admin 136
22 Oct 1996
Admn
Criminal Sentencing, Magistrates, Prisons
A sentence takes immediate effect as it is pronounced, thus allowing a defendant to be treated as a serving prisoner immediately.
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 82(3)(a)
[ Bailii ]
Queen v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Patrick Cross [1996] EWCA Civ 854
31 Oct 1996
CA
Prisons
Review of grant of parole for life prisoner.
[ Bailii ]
Domenichini v Italy 15943/90; [1996] ECHR 55; [1996] ECHR 55
15 Nov 1996
ECHR
Human Rights, Prisons
The court was concerned with the monitoring of the correspondence of prisoners, including legal correspondence. The Italian law permitted such monitoring if a judge, in his discretion, ordered it in a reasoned decision. Held: "The Court reiterates that while a law which confers a discretion must indicate the scope of that discretion, it is impossible to attain absolute certainty in the framing of the law, and the likely outcome of any search for certainty would be excessive rigidity. In this instance, however, Law No 354 leaves the authorities too much latitude. In particular, it goes no further than identifying the category of persons whose correspondence may be censored and the competent court, without saying anything about the length of the measure or the reasons that may warrant it. The gaps in . . . the Law weigh in favour of rejecting the Government's argument. In sum, the Italian Law does not indicate with reasonable clarity the scope and manner of exercise of the relevant discretion conferred on the public authorities, so that Mr. Domenichini did not enjoy the minimum degree of protection to which citizens are entitled under the rule of law in a democratic society. There has therefore been a breach of Article 8."
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department and Governor of Her Majesty's Prison Risley ex parte Hargreaves, Briggs and Green Times, 03 December 1996; Gazette, 05 February 1997; [1996] EWCA Civ 1006; [1997] 1 WLR 906
20 Nov 1996
CA
Hirst LJ
Prisons, Criminal Practice, Administrative
No sufficient expectation which could form the basis of a judicial review arose from an agreement for prison home leave which was later denied. The only legitimate expectation of the prisoners was to have their applications individually considered in light of whatever policy was in force at the time.
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Martin Lillycrop; Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Ronald George Powell; Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Andrew Scott Times, 13 December 1996; [1996] EWHC Admin 281
27 Nov 1996
Admn
Mr Justice Butterfield
Criminal Sentencing, Prisons
A continued denial of guilt alone is not sufficient to deny prisoner parole. "We consider that the Parole Board must approach its consideration of any application for parole on the basis that the Applicant has committed the offences of which he has been convicted. It is not the function of the Parole Board to investigate possible miscarriages of justice or to give effect in their considerations to any personal misgivings they may have about the correctness of any particular conviction." and "Thus, it is said that whilst the Parole Board certainly take the completion of a course of treatment as a positive factor in favour of any Applicant, the failure to complete such a course because of the denial of the commission of the offence leading to imprisonment should not be taken as a negative factor. In our judgment, this submission over simplifies the position." and "That being so, where the pattern of offending behaviour is such that there is a significant risk of a further offence being committed, particularly an offence of a violent or a sexual nature, and an applicant does not demonstrate by his conduct in prison that such risk has been reduced to acceptable level, then a recommendation for parole is unlikely to be made. The conduct in prison to which a panel of the Parole Board will inevitably and rightly look, will be the extent to which the applicant has examined the behaviour which has led to his imprisonment. Where, because of denial that the offence has been committed, no such examination has taken place, it will be more difficult for an applicant to satisfy the Board that the risk he posed when he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment has been reduced to an acceptable level. We repeat in emphasis that each case must turn on its own particular facts."
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Parole Board ex parte Gerald Oldfield Davies [1996] EWHC Admin 279
27 Nov 1996
Admn
Prisons
[ Bailii ]
Olutu v Home Office; CA 29-Nov-1996 - [1997] 1 WLR 328; [1996] EWCA Civ 1070; [1997] 1 All ER 385
Jeanette Ann Olotu v Home Office and Another Times, 11 December 1996; [1996] EWCA Civ 1070; [1997] 1 WLR 328
11 Dec 1996
CA
Torts - Other, Prisons
The plaintiff was remanded in custody pending trial in the Crown Court and a warrant was issued for her detention which directed the prison governor to hold her until she was delivered to the Crown Court in due course of law. The custody time limit was 112 days, but the Crown Prosecution Service failed to obtain an extension of the period of detention and did not arrange for her to be brought back to court for admission to bail. As a result she was detained for 81 days in excess of the prescribed period. The first instance court held that although the plaintiff's detention became unlawful once the custody time limit had expired, so that the Crown Court would have been bound to release her on bail if an application had been made, the governor was not liable for false imprisonment because the period of custody could only be brought to an end by an order of the court and pending such an order the governor was neither entitled nor bound to release her. Held: The appeal failed. A Prison Governor and the CPS were not liable for detention of the defendant beyond the lawful custody time limits.
Prosecution of Offences (Custody Time Limits) Regulations 1987 (1987 No 299)
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Ian Simms and Michael Alan Mark O'Brien Times, 17 January 1997; [1996] EWHC Admin 388
19 Dec 1996
QBD
Latham J
Media, Human Rights, Prisons
A full restriction on the use of material emanating from a prison visit was unlawful as an interference with the right of free speech of the prisoner: "The blanket prohibition on making use of material obtained in a visit is not, on the evidence before me, therefore justified as the minimum interference necessary with the right of free speech to meet the statutory objectives." However the court upheld the need to regulate access by professional journalists acting as such to prisons and prisoners: "There is no doubt that restrictions on visits are necessary for the proper regulation and management of prisons, and for the treatment, discipline and control of inmates. It seems to me to be entirely proper that the primary restriction should be that the only visitors should be family and friends. This accords with the general and beneficial policy to ensure that, so far as possible, an inmate retains his family and social connections. Beyond those categories there has to be some justification, it seems to me, for a visit, in order to ensure that access to inmates is not exploited for purposes which could be inimical to proper management of and discipline within prisons." and "I consider that a restriction preventing an inmate from communicating orally with the media in a visit unless the representative of the media gives an undertaking not to use the material obtained at that visit is a restriction on the right of free speech. . . . The test is whether or not the restriction is necessary in order to achieve the statutory objectives. In the present context, these objectives include the need to keep visits within sensible bounds for the ordinary management of the prison, and the discipline and control of inmates. This clearly entitles rules to be made which preclude access to the media, in any form, merely for the purposes of purveying general complaints, tittle tattle or other material which may be mischievous or offensive. In particular, as was recognised in Bamber, proper discipline and control includes consideration of the effect of inmates' activities on others. I am therefore quite satisfied that Rule 33(1) is lawful in including 'the interests of any persons' as a material consideration when deciding what restrictions are appropriate on communications between inmates and others. It follows, in my view, that the prohibition on communicating with the media by letter save where the inmate is making serious representations about his or her conviction or sentence. or is otherwise part of a serious comment about crime, the processes of justice or the penal system, meets the Leech test of being the minimum interference necessary to achieve the statutory objectives."
Prison Act 1952 47 - European Convention on Human Rights
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
