Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

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: 2003 To: 2003

This page lists 57 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Younger v The United Kingdom 57420/00; [2003] ECHR 706; (2003) 36 EHRR CD252
7 Jan 2003
ECHR

Human Rights, Prisons
Prison authorities are not obliged to regard all prisoners as potential suicide risks. It was not shown that the police should have known that their prisoner was a suicide risk.
European Convention on Human Rights
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (CD and ADR) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 27 January 2003; [2003] EWHC 155 (Admin); [2003] 1 FLR 979
17 Jan 2003
QBD
Maurice Kay J
Prisons, Children, Human Rights
The applicant challenged the decision to separate her from her child whilst she was in prison. Held: such a separation engaged her article 8 Human Rights, and she must be allowed representation when a decision was made. The Prison Service should call in appropriate experts in deciding what were the child's needs, the effect of separation, and the proportionality of the intended act to the need.
European Convention on Human Rights 8
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Dhanota, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others [2003] EWHC 18 (Admin)
22 Jan 2003
Admn

Prisons
Vexatious litigant application
[ Bailii ]
 
Van Der Ven v The Netherlands 50901/99; [2003] ECHR 62; (2004) 38 EHRR 46; [2009] ECHR 2243
4 Feb 2003
ECHR

Human Rights, Prisons
The applicant's complaint was that the detention regime to which he was subjected in a maximum security prison, including the use of intrusive strip searches, constituted inhuman and/or degrading treatment and infringed his right to respect for his private and family life. Held: the routine strip searches to which he was subjected together with other security measures amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of article 3. However detention in a high security prison facility could not be said in itself to raise an issue under the article. The removal from association with other prisoners for security, disciplinary or protective reasons did not in itself amount to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The court does have to examine the effect of the regime on the person concerned. A state must: "ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured".
Complete sensory isolation, coupled with total social isolation, can destroy the personality and constitutes a form of inhuman treatment which cannot be justified by the requirements of security or any other reason. But the removal from social association with other prisoners for (eg.) security or protection reasons does not of itself amount to inhuman or degrading treatment.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Lorse and Others v The Netherlands 52750/99; [2003] ECHR 59; [2003] ECHR 59
4 Feb 2003
ECHR

Human Rights, Prisons
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 3 with regard to the first applicant ; No violation of Art. 3 with regard to the other applicants ; No violation of Art. 8 ; No violation of Art. 13 ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
The applicants alleged that the detention regime to which the first applicant was subjected in a maximum security prison constituted inhuman and/or degrading treatment and infringed their right to respect for their private and family life, and that they did not have an effective remedy in respect of their complaint of inhuman treatment. He was serving a term of fifteen years, and the prison authorities had concluded that he might use violence to try to escape. He complained that the conditions had caused his mental deterioration. His family complained that the additional lack of contact also damaged them. Held: The prohibition against degrading treatment is absolute, but a regime must be seen as against its effect on a particular complainant. Weekly strip searches were unnecessary and damaging and infringed the applicant's article 3 rights. The extra inspections and limits on contact with his family were capable of being an infringement of his right to family life. The authorities were entitled to consider that an escape by Mr Lorsé would have posed a serious risk to society. The restrictions of the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life did not go beyond what was necessary in a democratic society to attain the legitimate aims intended. The applicant's situation was reviewed regularly, and various appeals had been heard. There was no violation of Article 13 of the Convention.
European Convention on Human Rights 3
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Dudley v Her Majesty's Advocate; HCJ 7-Feb-2003 - [2003] ScotHC 5

 
 Regina (Sim) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Admn 11-Feb-2003 - Times, 21 February 2003; Gazette, 03 April 2003; [2003] EWHC 152 (Admin); [2003] 2 WLR 1374; [2004] QB 1288
 
Cooper v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 213
12 Feb 2003
CA

Prisons

[ Bailii ]
 
Middleton, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWHC 315 (Admin)
19 Feb 2003
Admn
Pitchford J
Prisons, Coroners

[ Bailii ]
 
Murray, Regina (on the Application Of) v Parole Board and Another [2003] EWHC 360 (Admin)
21 Feb 2003
Admn

Prisons

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Duggan v Governor of Full Sutton Prison and Another Times, 25 March 2003; Gazette, 09 May 2003; [2003] 2 All ER 678
28 Feb 2003
ChD
Hart J
Prisons, Human Rights
On reception into prison, the prison took cash from the claimant which was returned on his release. He claimed that it should have been invested. Held: The credit of the receipt into the books of the prison created only a debt as between the prison and prisoner. No trust was created. What was taken was cash, and cash was returned. He had not been deprived of his property, and there was no rule against him making a request for the money to be paid into an interest bearing account. The right against interruption of the right to peaceful enjoyment had not been infringed.
Prison Rules 1999 (1999 No 728) 43(3) - European Convention on Human Rights 1
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Regina (E) v Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel Times, 17 March 2003
3 Mar 2003
CA
Woolf LCJ, Hale Latham LJJ
Personal Injury, Prisons
The claimant made a claim as regards a sexual assault committed against him in prison. The Panel refused the claim on the basis that he had consented. Held: A claim might succeed where the consent was vitiated in such circumstances as would leave the assault a criminal offence. The claimant was vulnerable and had been placed in a cell with a much older man accused of offences against other young men. F had groomed him for the offence. The question of consent should not be approached narrowly, but rather on a jury approach. Should the claimant properly be described as a victim. Submission was not the same as consent. In this case the claimant had the mental capacity to consent, but a simple question as to consent did not allow for his vulnerability. The Panel had not asked the correct questions, and the case was remitted to a different panel.
Sexual Offences Act 1956 15
1 Cites


 
Smith, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Home Department and others [2003] EWHC 406 (Admin)
7 Mar 2003
Admn

Prisons
Application to be placed in a Protected Witness Unit.
[ Bailii ]
 
Rodgers v Governor of Hm Prison Brixton and Another [2003] EWHC 1923 (Admin)
12 Mar 2003
Admn

Prisons

[ Bailii ]
 
Clough, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWHC 597 (Admin)
27 Mar 2003
Admn

Prisons

Crime (Sentencing) Act 1997 28
[ Bailii ]
 
Murdock, Re an Application for Judicial Review NIQB 23 [2003] NIQB 23
31 Mar 2003
QBNI

Northern Ireland, Prisons
Application by a sentenced prisoner, for a declaration that the search of his cell by prison officers and in particular the examination of legal correspondence when he was not present was unlawful.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (on the Application of 'S') v the Secretary of Statefor the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 426
4 Apr 2003
CA
Lord Justice Rix Lord Justice Simon Brown Lord Justice Scott Baker
Health, Prisons
The patient had been released on licence from prison. He later refused treatment for mental illness and was detained under the 1983 Act, though still on licence. His probation obtained the revocation of his licence, and he was recalled. He did not know of the revocation of his licence, but absconded from the hospital and re-arrested. Held: The section allowed that either a licensee was detained under a court sentence or at large. For the purposes of calculating a revised licence expiry date, the time spend detained in the mental hospital counted as time spent unlawfully at large and did not count to reduce the time to be spent in prison.
Prison Act 1952 49(2) - mental Health Act 1983 3
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina (on the Application of O'Brien, Hickey, Hickey) v Independent Assessor; QBD 16-Apr-2003 - [2003] EWHC 855 (Admin); Times, 05 May 2003; Gazette, 03 July 2003
 
Rowe and others v Fryers and Another [2003] EWCA Civ 655
8 May 2003
CA

Prisons, Evidence, Torts - Other

[ Bailii ]
 
Martin, Regina (on the Application Of) v Parole Board [2003] EWHC 1512 (Admin)
8 May 2003
Admn

Prisons

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Martin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 15 May 2003
8 May 2003
QBD
Maurice Kay, J
Prisons, Criminal Sentencing
The defendant had been convicted of murder. On appeal a conviction of manslaughter had been substituted, and a new sentence substituted. The parole board had come to consider his early release. Held: The remarks of the judge at the trial should now be given less weight than those of the later sentencing exercise. In this case the board had incorrectly declined to admit the record of the later hearing,but had themselves later cnfirmed that having now read it, it would not have made a difference to their decision against early release.

 
Spence, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 732; [2003] Prison Law Reports 290
23 May 2003
CA
Lord Justice Clarke Lord Justice Brooke Lady Justice Arden
Prisons, Human Rights
The court rejected a challenge to the Home Secretary’s decision to substitute a period of 18 months for the 9 months recommended by the Parole Board to be passed in open conditions before the prisoner’s next review. "[The right not to be detained arbitrarily] can be breached as a matter of law if the Home Secretary does not take proper steps to offer available offending behaviour courses designed to reduce risk and assess the level to which risk has been reduced because, absent such a duty, post-tariff detention could be reduced to ‘warehousing’ and the right to a review could become hollow. … The claimant submits that the existence of a duty grounded in Article 5 allows a prisoner in an appropriate case to secure a remedial order from a court to prevent a breach of Article 5(1)." In determining whether the interval between the review dates complied with article 5(4) on the facts of a particular case:- "the court asks itself whether the interval was reasonable. The answer to this question is a matter for the court. The court does not, therefore, apply the Wednesbury test and ask whether the interval was not one which a reasonable decision-maker could determine. In considering the question of reasonableness, the court would give appropriate weight to the views both of the Home Secretary and of the Parole Board."
European Convention on Human Rights 5.1
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Brooks, Regina (on the Application Of) v Parole Board and Another [2003] EWHC 1458 (Admin)
11 Jun 2003
Admn

Prisons

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina on the Application of Clift v Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 25 June 2003; CO4732/2002; [2003] EWHC 1337 (Admin); Gazette, 28 August 2003
13 Jun 2003
Admn
The Honourable Mr Justice Hooper
Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights, Prisons
The claimant had been sentenced to 18 years imprisonment. He challenged the differing treatment for parole purposes of those sentenced to more than 15 years, as infringing his human rights, insofar as the decision was retained by the Home Secretary. Held: The decision itself was clearly not irrational. As to the involvement of the Home Secretary, the court applied the four stage sequence of analysis from Michalak. (i) Does it fall within a substantive convention provisions (ii) If so, was there different treatment between the complainant other comparitors? (iii) Were the chosen comparators analogous? (iv) If so, did the difference in treatment have an objective and reasonable justification? As to 1) Legislation on early release on parole falls within Article 5(1) to engage Article 14. On 2) there was a difference, and the comparators were analagous. The difference in treatment was however justified because of the particular difficulties making decisions realting to such offenders.
European Convention on Human Rights 5 14 - Criminal Justice Act 1991 35 50
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Bloggs 61, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 686; Times, 04 July 2003; Gazette, 04 September 2003; [2003] 1 WLR 2724
18 Jun 2003
CA
Lord Justice Auld, Lord Justice Mummery And Lord Justice Keene
Prisons, Police
The applicant sought review of a decision to remove him from a witness protection scheme within the prison. He claimed that having been promised protection, he had a legitimate expectation of protection, having been told he would receive protection while he was in prison. He had not eventually been relied upon as a witness. Held: The police were not agents of the prison so as to allow anything they said to create a legitimate expectation as against the prison. There was no fine way of assessing what degree of risk created a 'sufficient clear and immediate risk' to him to create an Article 2 duty to protect him. There was no sufficient unfairness to create a separate duty, though the court suggested the system should be improved. Appeal dismissed.
Prison Act 1952 12 47(1) - Prison Rules 1999 45(1) - European Convention on Human Rights 2
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Pearson, Regina (on the Application Of) v The Parole Board [2003] EWHC 1391 (Admin)
20 Jun 2003
Admn

Prisons

[ Bailii ]
 
B, Regina (on the Application Of) v Southwark [2003] EWHC 1678 (Admin); Times, 30 July 2003; [2002] HLR 40
4 Jul 2003
Admn
Owen J
Housing, Prisons
A young offender was to be released subject to being tagged. He wished to apply for housing. Held: The claimant should be considered homeless. He had 'no accomodation available for his occupation' under the Act. Prison was not a right to occupy a cell, and was his continued detention would be the antithesis of a right to occupy.
Housing Act 1996 175(1)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
BP, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWHC 1963 (Admin)
17 Jul 2003
Admn

Prisons, Human Rights

[ Bailii ]

 
 Giles, Regina (on the Application of) v Parole Board and Another; HL 31-Jul-2003 - [2004] 1 AC 1; [2003] UKHL 42; Times, 01 August 2003; [2003] 3 WLR 736; [2003] UKHRR 1035; [2003] 4 All ER 429; [2003] HRLR 37
 
Smith, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWHC 2131 (Admin)
31 Jul 2003
Admn

Prisons

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Davidson v Scottish Ministers (No 3); HL 31-Jul-2003 - [2003] UKHL 72; 2005 1 SC(HL) 1
 
Regina (Smith) v Parole Board (No 2) Times, 02 September 2003; Gazette, 11 September 2003; [2003] EWCA Civ 1269; [2003] 1 WLR 2548; Gazette, 02 October 2003; [2004] 1 WLR 421
31 Jul 2003
CA
Kennedy, Brooke LJJ, Holman J
Prisons, Human Rights
The applicant having been released on licence had his licence revoked. The decision had been made at a hearing which considered evidence on paper only, which he said was unfair. Held: The case law had maintained a proper distinction between the determination of a criminal charge and otherwise. The first required an oral hearing for fairness, but otherwise not. A recall operated within a situation where the licensee was already subject to the sentence and conditions of his licence.The Parole Board was assessing prospective risk and probabilities, and it was not an area susceptible of proof beyond reasonable doubt. There had been no request for an oral hearing in this case, and the claimant was entitled to submit written representations. There was no unfairness.
European Convention on Human Rights 5.1 6.1 - Criminal Justice Act 1991 39(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Lord, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWHC 2073 (Admin)
1 Sep 2003
Admn
The Honourable Mr Justice Munby
Prisons, Information
The claimant was a category A prisoner serving a sentence of life imprisonment for murder. He sought the reasons for his categorisation as a Class A prisoner. Unhappy at the disclosure made, he sought information under the 1998 Act. It was argued that disclosure beyong 'gist' reports would threaten the system of categorisation, which was intended for the protection of the public. Held: The prisoner should see "the gist of the reports", not the gist of the Governor or Deputy Governor's overall assessment or recommendation, but the gist of the reports – all of them. Redacting information to this extent made it impossible for him to prepare any answer. The prisoner had been treated shabbily. "Likely" in section 29(1) connotes a degree of probability where there is a very significant and weighty chance of prejudice to the identified public interests. The proper balance called for by section 7(4)(b) between the legitimate interests of the prisoner and of the authors of the reports can be held by a system of targeted non–disclosure.
Data Protection Act 1998 7 29(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Petition of William Beggs for Judicial Review [2003] ScotCS 245
23 Sep 2003
OHCS
Lord Johnston
Scotland, Prisons
The petitioner a prisoner sought an interdict against the respondents requiring them not to open mail he was sending to his lawyers in connection with an action against them with regard to his treatment in prison.
Crown Proceedings Act 1947 21
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Cannan v Governor of HMP Sutton and Another Times, 30 January 2003; [2003] EWCA Civ 1480
9 Oct 2003
CA
Hooper J
Prisons, Legal Professions
The governor instituted a rule requiring that prisoners and their legal advisers wishing to exchange documents must first obtain authorisation. The prisoner challenged the rule, and particularly also that if prior authorisation had not been obtained, permission on the day could only been given in exceptional circumstances. Held: The rule was a response to problems of security, as such it was proportionate and valid, even though the court expressed the wish that the prison should not construe the phrase 'exceptional circumstances' too tightly.
[ Bailii ]
 
Ezeh and Connors v The United Kingdom 40086/98; 39665/98; Times, 30 October 2003; [2003] ECHR 485
9 Oct 2003
ECHR

Prisons, Human Rights
The applicants were prisoners subject to disciplinary proceedings. The offences were equivalent to criminal charges in domestic law. They were refused legal assistance, and had additional terms added to their sentences. Held: The charges engaged the defendants article 6 rights. The need for prison discipline was not a justification for removing such rights. The offences were not purely disciplinary. Though the additional days would not extend the terms served beyond the original periods set down by the courts, the effect was still to extend the actual term to be served. The refusal of legal representation was an infringement of their rights.
European Convention on Human Rights 6
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Worldlii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Wainwright and another v Home Office; HL 16-Oct-2003 - [2003] UKHL 53; Times, 20 October 2003; [2003] 3 WLR 1137; 2004] 2 AC 406

 
 Amin, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; HL 16-Oct-2003 - [2003] UKHL 51; Times, 17 October 2003; [2003] 3 WLR 1169; Gazette, 20 November 2003; [2004] 1 AC 653; [2004] UKHRR 75; (2004) 76 BMLR 143; [2003] 4 All ER 1264; [2004] HRLR 3; 15 BHRC 362
 
Jackson, Regina (on the Application of) v Parole Board and others [2003] EWHC 2437 (Admin)
27 Oct 2003
Admn

Prisons

[ Bailii ]
 
Ganci v Italie 41576/98; [2003] ECHR 566; (2005) 41 EHRR 16
30 Oct 2003
ECHR

Human Rights, Prisons
The applicant was serving two life sentences for Mafia related activities. He challenged nine decrees issued by the Minister of Justice under which he was held under a special prison regime for a period of four years. His case related to delays by the courts in dealing with his challenge. The Court said: "the applicant was contesting the lawfulness of restrictions imposed on a series of rights commonly recognised to prisoners . . at least some of the serious restrictions laid down by the decrees . . such as the one restricting his contact with his family and the ones affecting his finances - certainly fell within the sphere of personal rights and were therefore civil in nature."
European Convention on Human Rights
1 Citers

[ Worldlii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Regina (on the Application of Cawser) v Secretary of Statefor the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 1522; Times, 25 November 2003; Gazette, 02 January 2004; [2004] UKHRR 101
5 Nov 2003
CA
Lord Justice Laws Lord Justice Simon Brown Lady Justice Arden
Prisons
The claimant was serving a prison sentence for serious sexual offences. He would not be released until he had completed a sex offenders programme, but one was not made available, delaying his release. Held: "The Secretary of State is not under an absolute duty to devise and provide courses for all who want them and, moreover, to do so early enough in the prisoner’s sentence to maximise his hope of release on or very soon after his tariff expiry date." The Secretary approach to allocating places on courses is not open to criticism. However, there was an underlying premise of the legislation that it was intended to work in practice to the following effect: "Procedures would be put in place (so far as not already in place) to ensure that initiatives, in particular courses in the prison, would be available to maximise the opportunity for lifers to demonstrate they were no longer a danger to the public by the time that their tariff expired or as soon as possible thereafter, so as to allow the lifer's release once that was shown." and "Reducing the risk posed by lifers must be inherent in the legislation's purpose, since otherwise the statutes would be indifferent to the imperative that treats imprisonment strictly and always as a last resort." and
"there must be material at hand to show whether the prisoner's further detention is necessary or not. Without current and periodic means of assessing the prisoner's risk the regime cannot work as Parliament intended, and the only possible justification for the prisoner's further detention is altogether absent. In that case the detention is arbitrary and unreasonable on first principles, and therefore unlawful" and "Whether or not the prisoner ceases to present a danger cannot be a neutral consideration, in statute or policy. If it were, we would forego any claim to a rational and humane (and efficient) prison regime. Thus the existence of measures to allow and encourage the IPP prisoner to progress is as inherent in the justification of his continued detention as are the Parole Board reviews themselves; and without them that detention falls to be condemned as unlawful as surely as if there were no such reviews"
Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 28
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
William Murray v The Parole Board Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 1561; Times, 12 November 2003; Gazette, 08 January 2004
6 Nov 2003
CA
Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Sedley Mr Justice Munby
Prisons, Human Rights
The applicant had been convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He had twice previously been released on licence and had his licence revoked. His tarriff had expired The period between reviews of his detention had been two years, but a new system of 15 month intervals was being introduced. He complained that the period between reviews was insufficently frequent, and infringed his human right. Held: The new system was required to comply with Stafford.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina on the Application of Prison Officers' Association v the Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWHC 2662 (Admin)
10 Nov 2003
QBD
The Honourable Mr Justice Newman
Employment, Prisons

[ Bailii ]
 
Kitto, Regina (on the Application Of) v Parole Board and Another [2003] EWHC 2774 (Admin)
12 Nov 2003
Admn

Prisons

[ Bailii ]
 
A, Regina (on the Application Of) v National Probation Service [2003] EWHC 2910 (Admin)
18 Nov 2003
Admn

Prisons

[ Bailii ]
 
King v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWHC 2831 (Admin)
25 Nov 2003
Admn

Prisons, Human Rights

[ Bailii ]
 
Lindo, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWHC 2918 (Admin)
25 Nov 2003
Admn

Prisons

[ Bailii ]
 
A, Regina (on the Application Of) v Home Secretary [2003] EWHC 2846 (Admin)
27 Nov 2003
Admn

Media, Prisons, Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (on the Application of 'A') v Home Secretary [2003] EWHC 2846 (Admin)
27 Nov 2003
QBD
Lord Justice Kennedy Mr Justice Royce
Prisons, Human Rights

Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 21

 
Hare, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another [2003] EWHC 3336 (Admin)
1 Dec 2003
Admn

Prisons

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina on the Application Of Christine Davies v HM Deputy Coroner for Birmingham [2003] EWCA Civ 1739
2 Dec 2003
CA
Lord Justice Brooke Sir Martin Nourse Lord Justice Longmore
Coroners, Prisons

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
P, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWHC 2953 (Admin); Times, 29 December 2003
11 Dec 2003
Admn
Stanley Burnton J
Prisons, Health, Human Rights
The applicant was a discretionary life prisoner compulsorily detained in a mental hospital. His tariff had now expired. If not detained under the 1983 Act he would now be entitled to a review. He argued that there should be a joint hearing. Held: There is no necessary breach of the requirement of a speedy hearing caused by the provision of successive hearings by a mental health review tribunal and (if that results in discharge from MHA detention) a Discretionary Lifer Panel. Individual delays can be judged on their own facts. The fact that the claimant had no right to have his case considered by the Parole Board until after his discharge from detention under the MHA did not infringe his rights under Article 5.4.
European Convention on Human Rights - Mental Health Act 1983 49
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (on the application of R) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 09 January 2003
12 Dec 2003
QBD
Munby J
Health, Prisons
The decision to designate a prisoner with mental difficulties as a 'technical lifer' was not a sentencing exercise requiring a right for the issue to be heard before a court, and it remained a decision for the respondent.
1 Cites


 
Regina (Sim) v Parole Board Times, 02 January 2004; Gazette, 05 February 2004; [2003] EWCA Civ 1845
18 Dec 2003
CA
Ward, Keene LJJ, Munby J
Prisons, Human Rights
The prisoner had been sentenced to an extended term of five years imprisonment for indecent assault. He had been released, and then recalled for alleged breaches of his licence. The respondent appealed findings that such a recall was subject to article 5, and that his release would be mandatory under s44A(b) if his continued detention was no longer necessary, and the board positively persuaded of that need. Held: Given the case law since the first instance decision, it was clear that the prisoner had article 5.4 rights on recall. The judge's interpretation of s44A was correct.
Keene LJ: "the concept of a burden of proof is inappropriate when one is involved in risk evaluation".
European Convention on Human Rights 5 - Criminal Justice Act 1991 39 44A(4)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Nilsen, Regina (on the Application of) v Governor of HMP Full Sutton and Another [2003] EWHC 3160 (Admin); Times, 02 January 2004
19 Dec 2003
Admn
Maurice Kay, J
Prisons, Media, Human Rights
The prisoner complained that having written an autobiography, the manuscript materials had been withheld, and that this interfered with his rights of freedom of expression. Held: Such an action by the prison authorities was not incompatible with the prisoner's rights. The materials were not privileged, but were intended for publication contrary to the standing orders. A restriction on freedom of speech had to be necessary in pursuance of a pressing social need, and that connoted something beyond 'useful, reasonable or desirable' The elements supported by the rules were not limited to good order and discipline within the prison system. There was no special position enjoyed by an autobiography over other works. The respondent had clearly carried out a proportionality assessment, and the response was proportional and rational. Despite the existence of other copies it was not futile to seek still to control futher dissemination of this material.
European Convention on Human Rights 10 - Prison Act 1952 47(1) - Prisons Rules 1999 (1999 No 728)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Roberts v Parole Board [2003] EWHC 3120 (Admin); [2004] 2 All ER 776
19 Dec 2003
Admn
Maurice Kay J
Prisons
The prisoner had been convicted in 1996 of the murder of three police officers. His tariff had been fixed at 30 years. Material was to be placed before the parole board which was not to be disclosed to the appellant or his legal advisers. Instead it was proposed that special counsel should hear the material on his behalf. Held: The proposed procedure was lawful.
Criminal Justice Act 1991 32
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Sim and The Parole Board [2003] EWCA Civ 1845; [2004] 2 WLR 1170; [2004] HRLR 15
19 Dec 2003
CA
Ward, Keene LJJ, Munby J
Prisons, Human Rights
The prisoner was subject to an extended sentence, and had been recalled to prison. He now complained that the recall procedure had infringed his human rights.
Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000& 85 - European Convention on Human Rights 5
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.