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: 2004 To: 2004

This page lists 58 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Islington London Borough Council v TM [2004] EWHC 2050 (Fam)
2004
FD

Children, Prisons
The court considered when a ward of court baby was to live with his mother in a prison mother and baby unit.
1 Citers


 
DT, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWHC 13 (Admin)
20 Jan 2004
Admn

Prisons

Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 92
[ Bailii ]
 
Cross, Regina (on the Application of) v Governor HM Young Offenders Institute Thorn Cross [2004] EWHC 149 (Admin)
20 Jan 2004
Admn
Henriques J
Prisons
The claimant prisoner challenged the governor's refusal to release him on the home detention curfew scheme. Henriques J said: "no risk assessment is necessary in cases where a prisoner has committed a presumed unsuitable offence. It is only if there are exceptional circumstances that a risk assessment is carried out to see if the risk is low enough for the prisoner to be released on Home Detention Curfew . . the Governor, in considering exceptional circumstances, is concerned with maintaining public confidence in the scheme. The Secretary of State has decided that Governors should not have regard to the circumstances of the offences. Paragraphs 26 and 33 of the Prison Service Instruction makes this clear . . In particular, para 33 states that exceptional reasons will not include the level of risk the offender poses. Prisoners presumed unsuitable may, indeed, be judged as presenting a low risk of offending or of breach. It is likely that only a very few presumed unsuitable prisoners, nationally, will be released on Home Detention Curfew. Since exceptional reasons will not include the level of risk the offender poses, it seems to me that circumstances will be peculiar to the offender rather than the offence."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Hindawi and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 05 February 2004; [2004] EWHC 78 (Admin)
29 Jan 2004
Admn
McCombe J
Criminal Sentencing, Prisons, Human Rights
The prisoner was subject to a long term of imprisonment, and also to a deportation order which was to take effect upon his release. He complained that, because of the latter, he had not been considered for parole, and that this was discriminatiry. Held: The difference in treatment occurred because of the nationality of the prisoner. Such a decision in respect of French nationals would be discriminatory. It was not for the court to speculate as to the reasons for the policy, but it was discriminatory and unlawful.
Criminal Justice Act 1991 31 - European Convention on Human Rights 14
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
CF v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWHC 111 (Fam); [2004] 2 FLR 517
30 Jan 2004
FD
Munby J
Family, Litigation Practice, Prisons
The court considered the choice or procedures arising in relation to a baby ward of court living with its mother in prison. The sentence to be served would take the child beyond the maximum age provided for in mother and baby units.
Prison Rules 1999
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina on the Application of Brooks v The Parole Board [2004] EWCA Civ 80
10 Feb 2004
CA
Lord Justice Clarke Lord Justice Kennedy Lord Justice Wall
Prisons
The court had to decide the extent to which the Parole Board could rely on hearsay evidence in a case in which a discretionary life prisoner's licence had been revoked. The evidence was crucial to the issue of risk. Held: (majority) The Board's decision which had relied upon the hearsay evidnce was upheld. Kennedy LJ: What the Parole Board must do is to decide in the light of all the relevant material placed before it whether, in the terms of section 28(6)(b) of the 1997 Act, it "is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined".
Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 28(6)(b)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Duggan v Governor of Full Sutton Prison and Another Times, 13 February 2004; [2004] EWCA Civ 78; Gazette, 04 March 2004; [2004] 1 WLR 1010
10 Feb 2004
CA
Peter Gibson, Chadwick, Keene LJJ
Prisons
The prisoner had money removed and kept for him on entry to prison. Upon release he claimed that the money had been held in trust, and should have been invested for some return. He appealed a finding that the money had been held simply as a debt with no duty to invest it. Held: The removal of the money created a debt and no more. A prisoner retained all rights save any expressly removed. The rules made no other provision, and it was argued therefore that the prisoner retained beneficial ownership. That was the wrong question. The rule required the prisoner to be deprived of possession of the money. There was nothing in the language of the section to disturb other law. Cash and notes are fungibles. The transfer of them from one person to another transferred title at the same time. A debt was created.
Prison Rules 1999 (1999 No 728) 43(3)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina (Smith) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; and similar; CA 11-Feb-2004 - [2004] EWCA Civ 99; Times, 18 February 2004; Gazette, 11 March 2004; [2004] QB 1341
 
A T, Regina (on the Application of) v Parole Board and Another [2004] EWHC 515 (Admin)
18 Feb 2004
Admn

Prisons
Objections to recall
[ Bailii ]
 
Szuluk, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Prison Full Sutton [2004] EWHC 514 (Admin)
20 Feb 2004
Admn

Prisons, Human Rights
The prisoner was receiving long term health treatment, and objected that his correspondence with the doctor was being read. He was held as a category B prisoner but in a prison also holding category A prisoners, whose mail would be read. The prison settled upon a routine of the prison doctor reading the mail. Held: The case was truly exceptional, and the prison should revert to its initial policy which did not require a pre-reading of the correspondence.
European Convention on Human Rights 8
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Hickey and others v Independent Assessor; CA 25-Feb-2004 - [2004] EWCA Civ 340
 
Green, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Prison Risley and Another [2004] EWHC 596 (Admin)
10 Mar 2004
Admn

Prisons

[ Bailii ]

 
 Middleton, Regina (on the Application of) v Coroner for the Western District of Somerset; HL 11-Mar-2004 - [2004] UKHL 10; Times, 12 March 2004; [2004] 2 AC 182; [2004] 2 WLR 800; [2004] UKHRR 501; [2004] 2 All ER 465; (2004) 79 BMLR 51; [2004] Lloyds Rep Med 288; [2004] 17 BHRC 49; (2004) 168 JPN 479; (2004) 168 JP 329

 
 Sacker, Regina (on the Application of) v Coroner for the County of West Yorkshire; HL 11-Mar-2004 - Times, 12 March 2004; [2004] UKHL 11; Gazette, 22 April 2004; [2004] Lloyds Rep Med 281; [2004] UKHRR 521; [2004] 2 All ER 487; (2004) 79 BMLR 40; [2004] 1 WLR 796
 
Roberts, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2004] EWHC 679 (Admin)
12 Mar 2004
Admn
Elias J
Prisons
The claimant complained at a decision not to reduce his Category A status to that of a category B prisoner. He continued to maintain his innocence of the murders for which he had been convicted. He was therefore ineligible to take part in rehabilitation programmes. Held. After Pate, the respondent had altered the policy to require a governor also to consider whether a prisoner might be prevented from escaping though re-classified as category B. The claimant said that in practice nothing had changed. What was required of a prisoner who maintained his innocence in order to achieve some reduction in his status was that he demonstrate some substantial reason why the risk of his escaping was reduced.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Lindo, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 491
23 Mar 2004
CA

Prisons

[ Bailii ]
 
Henry, Regina (on the Application Of) v Parole Board and Another [2004] EWHC 784 (Admin)
25 Mar 2004
Admn

Prisons

[ Bailii ]
 
Hirst v The United Kingdom (No. 2) 74025/01; Times, 08 April 2004; [2004] ECHR 121; (2004) 38 EHRR 825; [2004] ECHR 122
30 Mar 2004
ECHR

Human Rights, Prisons, Elections
(Commission) The prisoner alleged that the denial of his right to vote whilst in prison was disproportionate. He was serving a life sentence for manslaughter. Held: The denial of a right to vote was in infringement of his rights and disproportionate. Different signatory countries had applied different standards. The UK law made a great distinction between different categories of offender or crime, but did not apply the same rules to prisoners on remand or imprisoned for non-payment of fines or contempt. There was no evidence of the issues having been considered by parliament in a way which took account of the issues of human rights.
Representation of the People Act 1983 3 - European Convention on Human Rights A3-1
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Jarvis, Regina (on the Application of) v Parole Board [2004] EWHC 872 (Admin)
31 Mar 2004
Admn
Robert Owen J
Prisons
The prisoner challenged his continued detention after release on licemce and recall. He was subject to an extended sentence. He submitted that the objective of the sentence was that following a period to be served in custody he should be released and rehabilitated in the community under the extended period of his licence. He submitted that in passing the sentence that he did the trial judge was making an assessment of the risk that the claimant presented and that the Parole Board should only have refused to direct his release where there had been a demonstrable increase in risk leading to recall, and where such increase could not be managed in the community, as the sentencing judge had intended. Held: Robert Owen J said: "The argument that the approach of the Parole Board was fundamentally flawed is misconceived. There was no requirement to carry out a comparative evaluation of the risk existing at the point at which sentence was passed and that existing at the date of the hearing before the Parole Board. The Board was obliged to consider whether, in the light of all the evidence placed before it, it was satisfied that it was no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the claimant be confined. As Elias J observed in paragraph 34 in Sim, where a prisoner on licence is detained following breach of the terms of the licence, or because other information raises fresh fears that he may commit further offences, there is no severing of the causal link between the sentence for the original conviction and the subsequent detention.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Graham, Re an Application for Judicial Review; QBNI 2-Apr-2004 - [2004] NIQB 24
 
Napier, Re Petition for Judicial Review; Higgs v The Scottish Ministers [2004] ScotCS 100; Times, 13 May 2004
26 Apr 2004
OHCS
Bonomy L
Scotland, Prisons, Human Rights
The petitioner complained of the conditions in the Barlinnie Prison in Glasgow. Held: The conditions in the prison infringed the petitioner's human rights against inhuman or degrading treatment and respect for privacy, and he was entitled to damages. The regime involved severe overcrowding. The cells were designed for single occupants and had no running water or toilet facilities. The prisoners were locked in for lengthy periods requiring them to defecate or urinate in a confined space also used as a dining space and with no privacy. The sluicing system available when slopping out occurred was also inedffective.
European Conention on Human Rights 3
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Napier v Secretary of State for Home Department [2004] EWHC 936 (Admin); Times, 27 May 2004; Gazette, 03 June 2004; [2004] 1 WLR 3056
29 Apr 2004
Admn
Goldring J
Prisons, Human Rights
The claimant, whilst a prisoner. had been found guilty in disciplinary proceedings, and sentenced to additional days. He was not allowed representation at the hearing. The respondent argued that, the penalty having later been quashed, the hearing had been reduced in status to an administrative hearing which did not require compliance with the Human Rights Act. Held: The decisive factor in Ezeh was the addition of days to the sentence. Stripped of the sentence the finding did not amount to a finding of guilt, and could properly be characterised as administrative. The decision could be useful in the management of the claimant's conditions in prison. "In my view a proper reading of the Ezeh and Connors case leads to the conclusion that, absent the imposition of added days, absent the requirement that the adjudication needs to be Article 6 compliant. In other words, without those added days, application of the Engel criteria would have led to a different conclusion. I say that for several reasons."
European Convention on Human Rights 6 8
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Clift, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 514; Times, 13 May 2004; Gazette, 20 May 2004; [2004] 3 All ER 338
29 Apr 2004
CA

Prisons, Human Rights
The claimant was a prisoner serving a determinate term exceeding 15 years. He complained that the respondent's remaining juridsiction as to his release on licence infringed his human rights. Held: This was the sole remaining element of the respondent's control over the release on licence of prisoners. The reasonableness of his power was to be determined in line with Michalak. The distinction made was potentially subject to the Convention, and this situation had not been anticipated in Giles or Smith. The natural comparators were other also serving determinate sentences. The applicant took part in a similar process of discretionary licences, but the difference in arbiter, in this case the respondent, was a material difference. The seriousness of the offences however justified the differences, and the minister was reasonably involved.
European Convention on Human Rights 5 14
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
TB, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2004] EWHC 1332 (Admin)
14 Jun 2004
Admn

Prisons
Treatmnt of 16 year old categorised as provisional Category A
[ Bailii ]
 
Pavletic v Slovakia 39359/98; [2004] ECHR 280
22 Jun 2004
ECHR

Human Rights, Damages, Prisons
ECHR Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objections dismissed (victim, non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) ; Violation of Art. 5-3 ; Violation of Art. 5-4 ; Violation of Art. 5-5 ; No separate issue under Art. 13 ; No violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected ; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient ; Costs and expenses partial award
The applicant's detention prior to trial, for a period of two years, had lasted an unreasonably long time. Held: The European court found a violation of article 5(3). There was also a breach of article 5(4) relating to an application which the applicant had made to the public prosecutor to be released on bail. The prosecutor had transmitted the request to the domestic court, which had failed to deal with it. However the applicant's detention on remand had been justified. In dealing with the claim under article 41, it noted that the period spent on remand had been deducted from the prison sentence which the applicant was ordered to serve following his conviction; and the court accepted that the deduction of a period of detention from the ultimate sentence removed the need for any further award in respect of non-pecuniary loss arising from a violation of article 5(3).
European Convention on Human Rights 5(3)
1 Citers

[ Worldlii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
SP v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWHC 1418 (Admin); Times, 13 October 2004
23 Jun 2004
Admn
Jack J
Prisons
The applicant was a child held on remand in a young offender institute. She was moved to a segregation unit. She had told her counsellor that she wanted to harm others with a razor. Held: The need for her to be allowed to make representations before an order for segregation was made was one of fairness. Though she would have opportunities after an order was made also, she should have been given the chance before an order was made.
[ Bailii ]
 
Day, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWHC 1742 (Admin)
24 Jun 2004
Admn
Ginns J
Prisons

[ Bailii ]
 
Corden, Re an Application for Judicial Review [2004] NIQB 44
9 Jul 2004
QBNI
Weatherup J
Northern Ireland, Prisons, Human Rights
On his return to the Young Offenders Institution, the applicant was found with positive indications of contact with drugs, and he was removed from association. He complained that his human rights had been infringed, contending that the "right" in issue was the right to association, being the right to maintain relationships with other prisoners as an aspect of the right to private life under Article 8 and the right to liberty within the confines of the prison. Held: The decision in issue did not involve a criminal charge or a civil right and Article 6 is not applicable.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Scordino v Italy (No. 2) 36815/97; [2004] ECHR 356
15 Jul 2004
ECHR

Human Rights, Prisons

European Convention on Human Rights
1 Citers

[ Worldli ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Davidson v Scottish Ministers 2004 GWD 27-572; [2004] UKHL 34; Times, 16 July 2004; 2005 1 SC (HL) 7; 2004 SLT 895; [2004] UKHRR 1079; [2004] HRLR 34; [2005] ACD 19; 2004 SCLR 991
15 Jul 2004
HL
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Woolf, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Cullen of Whitekirk
Prisons, Human Rights
The claimant had sought damages for the conditions in which he had been held in prison in Scotland. He later discovered that one of the judges had acted as Lord Advocate representing as to the ability of the new Scottish Parliamentary system to resist claims for damages, and now complained of bias. Held: Though the particular judge was clearly above criticism, a "fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased." It would be difficult to lay down a clear line, but in this case, a litigant might he would be affected by a desire in the judge not to breach a promise he had made to the Scottish Parliament. In many cases, a judge having declared his previous actions would be welcomed by the parties, but if not, he should be ready to recuse himself if necessary.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: "The rule of law requires that judicial tribunals established to resolve issues arising between citizen and citizen, or between the citizen and the state, should be independent and impartial. This means that such tribunals should be in a position to decide such issues on their legal and factual merits as they appear to the tribunal, uninfluenced by any interest, association or pressure extraneous to the case. Thus a judge will be disqualified from hearing a case (whether sitting alone, or as a member of a multiple tribunal) if he or she has a personal interest which is not negligible in the outcome, or is a friend or relation of a party or a witness, or is disabled by personal experience from bringing an objective judgment to bear on the case in question. Where a feature of this kind is present, the case is usually categorised as one of actual bias. But the expression is not a happy one, since bias suggests malignity or overt partiality, which is rarely present. What disqualifies the judge is the presence of some factor which could prevent the bringing of an objective judgment to bear, which could distort the judge's judgment."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Palmer, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWHC 1817 (Admin)
19 Jul 2004
Admn
Collins J
Prisons
The prisoner had been sentenced for serious frauds, and was subject to a long sentence. He complained that the governor had amended his prison categorisation from D to B, resulting in the loss of chance to stay in an open prison without giving him opportunity to make representations. Held: The governor was under no duty to provide that opportunity. The prisoner had a right of appeal which was sufficient protection. The treatment of life prisoners and non-life prisoners was different. The appeal was allowed on other grounds.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Watkins v Secretary of State for The Home Departmentand others [2004] EWCA Civ 966; Times, 05 August 2004; [2005] QB 883
20 Jul 2004
CA
Lord Justice Clarke Lord Justice Laws Lord Justice Brooke
Prisons, Torts - Other
The claimant complained that prison officers had abused the system of reading his solicitor's correspondence whilst he was in prison. The defendant argued that there was no proof of damage. Held: Proof of damage was not necessary in the tort of misfeasance in public office. The prisoner would be awarded £5.00 nominal damages against the first defendant, but the issue of the claim for exemplary damages against the individual officers was remitted to the judge. The behaviour infringed the claimant's basic constitutional right of access to the courts: "If there is a right which may be identified as a constitutional right, then there may be a cause of action for an infringement of that right without proof of special damage, provided that there is something more than the mere infringement."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Miah, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2004] EWHC 2569 (Admin)
22 Jul 2004
Admn

Prisons, Health

Mental Health Act 1983 47
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina on the Application of Stephen Bannatyne v Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Independent Adjudicator [2004] EWHC 1921 (Admin)
22 Jul 2004
QBD
Mr Justice Sullivan
Prisons

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Miah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 10 September 2004
22 Jul 2004
QBD
Collins J
Prisons
The prisoner had been sentenced but then transferred to a secure mental hospital. Whilst there be acted in a way equivalent to a hostage taking. Held: Upon his release from the mental hospital the powers as to recall under the prison sentence remained intact, and he was properly returned to prison.

 
Roberts v Parole Board [2004] EWCA Civ 1031; Times, 06 September 2004; [2005] QB 410; [2008] 1 WLR 1950
28 Jul 2004
CA
Lord Justice Tuckey, Lord Justice Clarke, Mr Justice Jackson
Prisons
The discretionary life-prisoner faced a parole board. The Secretary of State wished to present evidence, but wanted the witness to be protected. The Parole Board appointed special counsel to hear the evidence on behalf of the prisoner on terms that the prisoner was not to know of the evidence. The prisoner appealed. Held: The appeal failed. The Board had an inherent power to control its own procedures. The Act was silent as to its procedures. It had a duty to hear the evidence and to protect a witness. The Board counted as a court for the purposes of Human Rights Law, and needed to be and to be seen to be free of influence from the Secretary of State in relation to the performance of its judicial functions. The appointment of a special counsel operated as the best protection available in the circumstances to the prisoner. Fairness had to be judged on the facts of each case. In this case it had been as fair as it could be made.
Criminal Justice Act 1991 32
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Independent Assessor v O'Brien, Hickey, Hickey; CA 29-Jul-2004 - [2004] EWCA Civ 1035; Times, 07 September 2004
 
Scordino v Italy (2006) 45 EHRR 207; 36813/97; [2004] ECHR 412
29 Jul 2004
ECHR

Human Rights, Prisons, Damages
(French Text) Grand Chamber. In the context of unreasonable delay in violation of article 6(1), there was a strong but rebuttable presumption that excessively long proceedings would occasion non-pecuniary damage.
European Convention on Human Rights
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Worldlii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Carman, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWHC 2400 (Admin)
30 Jul 2004
Admn

Prisons, Human Rights
Terms of release on licence
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Carman) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 11 October 2004
30 Jul 2004
QBD
Moses J
Prisons
The prisoner sought to challenge the terms set for his release on licence. Held: in this case there were exceptional circumstances to justify an alteration in the terms. The board had not given regard to the actual matters for which the prisoner had been sentenced. However the court made it clear that such challenges should normally be resisted by the courts save in such exceptional cases.

 
Francis and Another, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another Times, 12 October 2004; [2004] EWHC 2143 (Admin)
30 Jul 2004
Admn

Prisons
Each prisoner had been released on licence but then recalled after charged with further crimes. They made representations to the Home Secretary which were rejected. After being acquitted of the respective offences, they sought to make further representations. Held: The representations were as to the way in which the decision to recall them had been made, and not to the reasons underlying it. Accordingly whilst circumstances might arise in which further representations would be properly accepted by the respondent, those circumstances would be limited again to the way the decision had been taken. Here the representations against a recall were in reality as to the continuing propriety of their detention, and were not to be accepted in this form. In any event the decision as to whether to accept representations lay with the respondent.
[ Bailii ]
 
Buxton, Regina (on the Application of) v The Parole Board and Another [2004] EWHC 1930 (Admin)
6 Aug 2004
Admn

Criminal Sentencing, Prisons
Revocation of licence - offence of assault.
Criminal Justice Act 1991 34A
[ Bailii ]
 
Clarke, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWHC 2281 (Admin)
26 Aug 2004
Admn

Prisons, Judicial Review

[ Bailii ]
 
MJ, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWHC 2069 (Admin)
27 Aug 2004
Admn

Prisons
Challenge to change of status
[ Bailii ]
 
Vary and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2004] EWHC 2251 (Admin)
3 Sep 2004
Admn

Prisons
Change of prisons policy resulting in re-classification of prisoners
[ Bailii ]
 
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Hindawi and Headley [2004] EWCA Civ 1309; Times, 26 October 2004
13 Oct 2004
CA
Lord Justice Kennedy Lord Justice Sedley Lord Justice Neuberger
Prisons, Human Rights
The applicant was a foreign national serving a long-term prison sentence. He complained that UK nationals would have had their case referred to the parole board before his. Held: The right to be referred to the parole board was a statutory right, which was not the same as an article 3 right to liberty and not to be discriminated against. In the light of Giles and Smith it was clear that the facts of these cases were outside the ambit of Article 5, and therefore neither respondent could rely on Article 14. The decision letter did what it was required to do. It explained to the prisoner why his application was being refused. The reasons were personal to him, and had nothing to do with the attitude of Syria. The Home Secretary's appeal succeeded.
European Convention on Human Rights 3 - Criminal Justice Act 1991
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Hamblett, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Prison Frankland; Admn 20-Oct-2004 - [2004] EWHC 2466 (Admin)

 
 Taylor, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Prison Risley; Admn 20-Oct-2004 - [2004] EWHC 2654 (Admin)
 
Brown v United Kingdom 968/04; Unreported, 26 October 2004
26 Oct 2004
ECHR

Human Rights, Prisons
The applicant had been sentenced to eight years imprisonment for supplying heroin and released on licence after serving two-thirds of this sentence. He was recalled for breach of the residence conditions of his bail. The Parole Board then considered whether he should be released again and concluded that he should not. He sought to attack this decision by judicial review, but was refused permission. He complained that his recall to detention violated article 5.1 because there was no link between the renewed detention and the original sentence for supplying drugs. He also contended that he was entitled to a court-like review of the justification for his continued detention pursuant to article 5.4. Held: The comapiant was inadmissible. The recall of a licensee to prison did not to involve the determination of a criminal charge against him: "[W]here an applicant is convicted and sentenced by a competent court to a determinate term of imprisonment for the purposes of punishment, the review of the lawfulness of detention is incorporated in the trial and appeal procedures . . No new issues of lawfulness concerning the basis of the present applicant's detention arose on recall and no right to a fresh review of the lawfulness of his detention arose for the purposes of article 5(4) of the Convention."
"The court recalls that the applicant was sentenced to a determinate prison sentence of eight years after conviction by a competent criminal court and accordingly, his detention fell within sub-paragraph 1 (a) above. The applicant seeks to argue that after his release on licence he was lawfully at large and his situation was analogous to the situation applicable to the conditional liberty allowed to those on life licence (for example, Weeks v United Kingdom, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A, no 114) and restricted patients on release from hospital (for example, X v United Kingdom, judgment of 5 November 1981, Series A, no 46) and therefore that his recall had to be properly linked to the basis of his original conviction and in conformity with the varying requirements of article 5.
The court considers however that there is a crucial distinction between the cases cited by the applicant and the circumstances of his own case. Discretionary and mandatory lifers, after the expiry of the punitive element of their sentence, are detained on the basis of risk - the justification for their continued detention is whether it is safe for the public for them to live in the community once more. Similarly the recall of restricted patients is based on factors arising from their mental health. The applicant however has been sentenced to a fixed prison term by a court as the punishment for his offence. The lawfulness of his detention does not depend, in Convention law terms, on whether or not he ceases to be at risk of re-offending. The fact that the applicant before the end of the sentence may expect to be released on licence does not affect this analysis. When such a prisoner is recalled his detention is again governed by the fixed term imposed by the judge conforming with the objectives of that sentence and thus within the scope of article 5 § 1(a) of the Convention.
Article 5 § 1 does provide that at all times detention must be 'in accordance with the law'. The court notes that the basis for the applicant's recall was considered by the Parole Board, which found that he was in breach of the terms of his licence, and that its decision was in turn subject to judicial review. In the judicial review proceedings the applicant's arguments concerning the lawfulness of his recall and the Parole Board's procedure were rejected by the High Court and the Court of Appeal. On the whole bound to respect domestic courts' interpretation of domestic law (see for example, Benham v United Kingdom, judgment of 10 June 1996, BAILII: [1996] ECHR 22 , Reports 1996-III, § 41), the court detects no arbitrariness or other feature that would justify it departing from their assessment.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
The applicant complains of lack of a court review of the justification of his continued detention after recall, invoking article 5 § 4 of the Convention which provides: 'Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful'.
The court recalls that where an applicant is convicted and sentenced by a competent court to a determinate term of imprisonment for the purposes of punishment, the review of the lawfulness of detention is incorporated in the trial and appeal procedures (see, mutatis mutandis, V v United Kingdom, no 24888/94, ECHR 1999-IX, § 119, BAILII: [1999] ECHR 171 ; Stafford v the United Kingdom, (2002) 35 EHRR 32, § 87). No new issues of lawfulness concerning the basis of the present applicant's detention arose on recall and no right to a fresh review of the lawfulness of his detention arose for the purposes of article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention."
European Convention on Human Rights 5.4
1 Citers


 
Regina on the Application of Szuluk v The Governor of HMP Full Sutton and the Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 1426; [2004] EWHC 2652 (Admin)
29 Oct 2004
CA
The Master Of The Rolls Lord Justice Sedley Lord Justice Neuberger
Prisons, Human Rights
Right of prison to read correspondence with doctor
European Convention on Human Rights 8
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Martinez Sala And Others v Spain 58438/00; [2004] ECHR 582
2 Nov 2004
ECHR

Human Rights, Prisons
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) - No violation of Art. 3 regarding the allegations of ill-treatments; Violation of Art. 3 regarding the lack of effective investigation; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings.
ECHR Court found that the Spanish authorities had failed to carry out an effective official investigation into the applicants’ allegations that they were ill-treated in police custody when arrested in the summer of 1992, shortly before the Olympic Games in Barcelona, in connection with an investigation into terrorist offences.
No violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment)
Violation of Article 3 (investigation)
1 Citers

[ Wordlii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Morecock, Regina (on the Application Of) v Parole Board [2004] EWHC 2521 (Admin)
8 Nov 2004
Admn

Prisons
Recall from parole
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Gleaves) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 15 November 2004; [2004] EWHC 2522 (Admin)
10 Nov 2004
QBD
Lightman J
Prisons
The defendant prisoner had been disciplined for using a racist term against a prison officer. He complained that the failure to give reasons for the finding of guilt made the decision void. Held: The disciplinary proceedings could lead to loss of remission, and therefore his liberty was at stake. However there was no statutory duty to give reasons and it could not be a condition of the legality that reasons be given. Governors should nevertheless comply with the directions given in the Prisons Manual and provide the prisoner and other to whom any appeal may be brought with a full and reliable record of the adjudication and reasons for rejecting the prisoners defence.
Prisons Act 1952 47(1)
[ Bailii ]
 
Irving, Regina (on the Application Of) v Parole Board [2004] EWHC 2863 (Admin)
12 Nov 2004
Admn

Prisons

[ Bailii ]
 
Nilsen v HM Prison Full Sutton and Another [2004] EWCA Civ 1540; Times, 23 November 2004; [2005] 1 WLR 1028
17 Nov 2004
CA
Mr Justice Gage, Lord Justice Kennedy, Lord Phillips Master Of The Rolls
Prisons, Human Rights, Media
The prisoner, a notorious murderer had begun to write his autobiography. His solicitor wished to return a part manuscript to him in prison to be finished. The prison did not allow it, and the prisoner claimed infringement of his article 10 rights. Held: Section 47 of the Act speaks not only of regulation and management of prisons but control of prisoners, and one legitimate aspect of a sentence of imprisonment is that it renders subject to control the exercise of the prisoner's freedom to express himself to those who are outside the prison. "We do not believe that any penal system could readily contemplate a regime in which a rapist or a murderer would be permitted to publish an article glorifying in the pleasure that his crime had caused him. English jurisprudence suggests that to restrict prisoners from publishing such matter is a legitimate exercise of the power conferred on the Secretary of State by the Prison Act. "
European Convention on Human Rights - Prison Rules 1999
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Hammond, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWHC 2753 (Admin); Times, 06 December 2004
25 Nov 2004
Admn
Thomas LJ, Richards J, Fulford J
Prisons, Human Rights
The defendant had heard that the sentencing judge would set his sentence tarriff without an oral hearing, and would then give his decision in open court. He sought judicial review. Held: Review was granted. The availability of a right of appeal was not of itself sufficient to justify a declaration of incompatibility for a section whose procedure did not respect the applicant's human rights. Paragraph 11 might prevent a judge from holding a hearing where he thought one was necessary to satisfy the applicant's rights to a fair trial, and must be read to be subject to a condition permitting a discretion to the judge to hold an oral hearing. A judge might occasionally exercise a discretion to hold an oral hearing.
Human Rights Act 1998 3(1) - Criminal Justice Act 2003 Sch 22 p11
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
D, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Home Department and Another [2004] EWHC 2857 (Admin)
15 Dec 2004
Admn

Prisons, Health

[ Bailii ]
 
Secretary of State for the Home Department v SP [2004] EWCA Civ 1750; Times, 21 January 2005
21 Dec 2004
CA
Ward, Jacob, Hooper LJJ
Prisons
The applcant, a girl aged 17 was in a young offender institution. She complained that she had been removed to segregation without first giving her chance to be heard. The respondent argued that there were sufficient post decision safeguards to ensure fairness. Held: Modern standards of fairnesss required that she be given opportunity to be heard before the decision was taken. This did not require more than an opportunity to comment on the tentative reasons for making an order. The regime to which she was moved was substantially different. Fair treatment is part of the retributive process.
The Court emphasised both the instrumental value of enabling persons to participate in decision-making when they may be able to contribute relevant information or to test other information before the decision-maker, and the ethical value of allowing persons to participate in decision-making which concerns them and is liable to have a significant effect on their rights or interests, where they may have something to say which is relevant to the decision to be taken
1 Cites

1 Citers

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