A challenge under article 5 to decisions about a prisoner’s treatment were misconceived in the context of the Secretary of State’s refusal to transfer a prisoner to open conditions with a view to improving his prospects of release: ‘[Article 5(4)] is not to do with how persons are treated while they were detained or where they are placed in the prison system. Other parts of the Convention, none of which are suggested to have been infringed in this case, deal with those matters. That being so, there is no obvious way in which Article 5 has any connection with the decision which is at the moment complained of as to whether this man should in be enclosed or open conditions.’
Judges:
Buxton LJ
Citations:
[2000] Prison Law Reports 62
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 5
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina (on the Application of Cawser) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 5-Nov-2003
The claimant was serving a prison sentence for serious sexual offences. He would not be released until he had completed a sex offenders programme, but one was not made available, delaying his release.
Held: ‘The Secretary of State is not under . .
See Also – Regina (Gunn) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Regina (Kelly) v Same Regina (Zahid Khan) v Same CA 14-Jun-2001
The new Regulations and court rules expressly reserved to a costs judge the decision about whether a costs order should be made against the Legal Services Commission. The former practice of the trial judge making this decision must no longer apply. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Prisons, Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.187523
