Minter v United Kingdom: ECHR 2017

Mr Minter was sentenced to an extended sentence for sexual offences. This meant that he was subject to an extended licence period, and thus to a requirement to notify the police of various personal details indefinitely. Mr Minter complained that the application of the indefinite notification period was in breach of article 8 of the ECHR, either read alone or in conjunction with article 14.
Held: Although the notification requirement was an interference with his article 8 rights, it was not disproportionate, and the article 8 claim was manifestly ill-founded. However, Mr Minter argued that, by virtue of a change in the law, if he had been sentenced later, he would not have received an extended sentence and would not therefore have been subject to the indefinite notification period at all. That, he submitted, amounted to an unjustified difference in treatment based on ‘other status’, and to a violation of article 14 taken with article 8.
(2017) 65 EHRR SE6
European Convention on Human Rights 8
Human Rights
Cited by:
CitedStott, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 28-Nov-2018
The prisoner was subject to an extended determinate sentence (21 years plus 4) for 10 offences of rape. He complained that as such he would only be eligible for parole after serving two thirds of his sentence rather than one third, and said that . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 October 2021; Ref: scu.668747