The appellant challenged his recall to prison from licence. He had been convicted in 1973 of the murder of two police officers. He had remained at liberty for 18 years, befire his licence was revoked on the basis of confidential iintelligence information. The recall was considered by a panel of commissioners and material was served, the applicant having his own representative and a special advocate who was given access to the closed materials. The panel found that he had held a position of leadership within the Continuity Irish Republican Army. He had complained that the closed material procedure infringed his article 5.4 rights. His challenge succeeded at first instance, and the case was remitted for reconsideration with the grant of bail. The court now heard an appeal considering whether the court had had jurisdiction to release the claimant on bail under its inherent hjurisdiction or otherwise.
Held: The appeal failed. The claimant had not challeged the lawfulness of the detention itself, but rather the procedure. Therefore nor had the decision to release been based un any unlawfulnesss of the detention: ‘what Mr Corey claims is the right to have his valid recall to prison reviewed in a way that is compliant with article 5(4) of the Convention. A power to grant bail ancillary to the declaration that the appellant was entitled to that particular form of relief was not only unnecessary in order to make the grant of relief practical and effective, it was unrelated to it.’
Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson
 UKSC 76,  1 AC 516,  WLR(D) 479,  1 All ER 863,  3 WLR 1612, UKSC 2012/0217
Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC
Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953 23(1), Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001, European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights 5.4
England and Wales
At First Instance – Corey, Re Judicial Review QBNI 9-Jul-2012
C had been recalled from parole, and complained that the procedure had been unfair in that it had been almost entirely based upon closed materials.
Held: The Commissioners’ decision was indeed based solely or decisively on the closed material. . .
Cited – Ex parte Blyth 1944
The High Court did not have jurisdiction to grant bail post conviction . .
Appeal from – Corey, Re Judicial Review CANI 21-Dec-2012
The claimant had been recalled to prison from parole, and challenged his recall, saying that the procedure, being almost entirely based upon closed material infringed his rights to a fair trial. The respondent now appealed against an order finding . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Turkoglu CA 1987
The applicant had been granted bail by a High Court judge when he was given leave to apply for judicial review of the decision refusing him leave to enter the United Kingdom. His application for judicial review was subsequently dismissed and the . .
Cited – Samaroo and Sezek v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 17-Jul-2001
Two foreign nationals with leave to remain in this country committed serious crimes. The Secretary of State ordered their deportation.
Held: Where the deportation of a foreigner following a conviction here, would conflict with his human . .
Cited – Weeks v The United Kingdom ECHR 5-Oct-1988
The Court was asked as to the recall to prison of a prisoner who had been released on licence. His recall and subsequent detention were considered by the Board, but under the system then in place it could only make a non-binding recommendation. . .
Cited – Stafford v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-May-2002
Grand Chamber – The appellant claimed damages for being held in prison beyond the term of his sentence. Having been released on licence from a life sentence for murder, he was re-sentenced for a cheque fraud. He was not released after the end of the . .
Cited – Von Bulow v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Oct-2003
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-4 ; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected ; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings . .
Cited – Wells v The Parole Board and Another; Regina (Walker) v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 31-Jul-2007
The prisoners challenged their continued detention. They had been sentenced and had served their tariff terms but had been continued to be detained for public protection, but with no current or effective assessment of what risk was posed.
Cited – Lee and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 25-Jul-2008
The defendants appealed sentences imposed as indeterminate for public protection. Moses LJ said: ‘the position of a prisoner whose level of dangerousness cannot be ascertained is the same as one who ceases to be a danger. The original justification . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Justice v James HL 6-May-2009
The applicant had been sentenced to an indefinite term for public protection, but the determinate part of his sentence had passed with no consideration as to whether his continued detention was required.
Held: The post tariff detention was not . .
Cited – James, Wells and Lee v The United Kingdom ECHR 18-Sep-2012
ECHR Article 5-1
Deprivation of liberty
Failure to provide the rehabilitative courses to prisoners which were necessary for their release: violation
Facts – By virtue of section 225 of the . .
Cited – Haney 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.
Northern Ireland, Prisons, Human Rights, Litigation Practice
Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518639