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.
Judges:
Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Sedley Mr Justice Munby
Citations:
[2003] EWCA Civ 1561, Times 12-Nov-2003, Gazette 08-Jan-2004
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
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 – Oldham v The United Kingdom ECHR 26-Sep-2000
Where a parole board took two years to consider the applicant’s parole, this was unreasonable, and a breach of the Article 5.4 requirement to deal with such matters speedily. Accordingly the continued detention of the applicant became unlawful. The . .
Cited – Hirst v United Kingdom ECHR 24-Jul-2001
The applicant asserted that the delays in the reviews, undertaken by the Parole Board, of his continued detention as a discretionary life prisoner, was a breach of his right to a speedy decision. The delays were between 21 and 24 months. Such delays . .
Cited – Herczegfalvy v Austria ECHR 24-Sep-1992
The applicant was detained in an institution for mentally deranged offenders. While so detained he was subjected to the forcible administration of food and neuroleptics and to handcuffing to a security bed. He complained of violation of his Article . .
Cited – Regina v Parole Board, ex parte MacNeil CA 18-Apr-2001
The interval between occasions of consideration of the granting of parole to a discretionary life prisoner, was to be determined on the facts and circumstances of each prisoner. There was no rule that the maximum period between reviews was to be two . .
Appeal from – Murray, Regina (on the Application Of) v Parole Board and Another Admn 21-Feb-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Prisons, Human Rights
Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.187563
