The prisoner had been sentenced to a punitive term, and an additional protective term under the Act. After the parole board had decided that he could be released from the punitive part of the sentence, he obtained declaration that the board should also periodically review the protective part of the sentence.
Held: The protective part of the sentence was fixed by the judge just because he had heard the evidence, and that part of a sentence was to be set and reviewed only by the judiciary.
Judges:
Lord Justice Kennedy, Lord Justice May and Lord Justice Tuckey
Citations:
Times 23-Jul-2002, Gazette 12-Sep-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 951, [2003] 2 WLR 196, [2003] 1 Cr App Rep (S) 392, [2002] 3 All ER 1123, [2002] Crim LR 743, [2003] 1 Cr App R (S) 392
Links:
Statutes:
Criminal Justice Act 1991 2(2)(b)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina on the Application of Clift v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 13-Jun-2003
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. . .
Appeal from – Giles, Regina (on the Application of) v Parole Board and Another HL 31-Jul-2003
The defendant had been sentenced for offences of violence, but an additional period was imposed to protect the public. He had been refused leave for reconsideration of that part of his sentence after he completed the normal segment of his sentence. . .
Cited – Clift, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 29-Apr-2004
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing, Prisons
Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.174305