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 sentence he served for that offence. He said there was no evidence that he would continue to be a danger, and that the system provided no way for him to test his continued detention.
Held: There was a breach of his human rights. There was no sufficient connection between his original conviction for murder and any risk that he might commit further non-violent offences after release. He was awarded damages for his unlawful detention. It is wrong to regard a sentence of life imprisonment as a sentence that the prisoner be imprisoned for life. It was never anticipated that prisoners serving mandatory life sentences would in fact stay in prison for life, save in exceptional cases. That was demonstrated by developments that had been taking place in England in the management of life sentences. The mandatory life sentence does not impose imprisonment for life as a punishment and that the tariff, which reflects the individual circumstances of the offence and the offender, represents the element of punishment. ‘It is of crucial importance that the Convention is interpreted and applied in a manner which renders its rights practical and effective, not theoretical and illusory’
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-1; Violation of Art. 5-4; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses award

Judges:

L Wildhaber P, C L Rozakis, J-P. Costa, Sir Nicolas Bratza, A. Pastor Ridruejo, E. Palm, P. Kuris, R. Turmen, F. Tulkens, K. Jungwiert, V. Butkevych, N. Vajic etc

Citations:

Times 31-May-2002, 46295/99, ECHR 2–2-iv, [2002] 35 EHRR 1121, [2002] ECHR 466, [2002] ECHR 470, [2002] Crim LR 828, [2002] Po LR 181, [2002] 35 EHRR 32, 13 BHRC 260

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5.1 5.4, Criminal Justice Act 1991 35(2)

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Secretary of State For The Home Department Ex Parte Stafford HL 12-Mar-1998
The Home Secretary had the right not to follow a Parole Board’s recommendation to release a prisoner after the service of the tariff part of his sentence, where he was satisfied that the offender would commit further offences, even if those offences . .
CitedWeeks v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-Mar-1987
The applicant, aged 17, was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment in the interests of public safety, being considered by the trial judge on appeal to be dangerous.
Held: ‘The court agrees with the Commission and the . .

Cited by:

AppliedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex parte Anderson HL 25-Nov-2002
The appellant had been convicted of double murder. The judge imposed a mandatory life sentence with a minimum recommended term. The Home Secretary had later increased the minimum term under the 1997 Act. The appellant challenged that increase.
CitedEasterbrook v The United Kingdom ECHR 12-Jun-2003
The prisoner was convicted of an armed robbery in which a policeman had been shot, and had been sentenced to life imprisonment. The judge set no tariff himself. The tariff was set by the Home Secretary, but only after some time. The discretionary . .
CitedMurray v The Parole Board Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 6-Nov-2003
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 . .
Appealed toRegina v Secretary of State For The Home Department Ex Parte Stafford HL 12-Mar-1998
The Home Secretary had the right not to follow a Parole Board’s recommendation to release a prisoner after the service of the tariff part of his sentence, where he was satisfied that the offender would commit further offences, even if those offences . .
CitedFlynn, Meek, Nicol and McMurray v Her Majesty’s Advocate PC 18-Mar-2004
PC (High Court of Justiciary) The applicants had each been convicted of murder, and complained that the transitional provisions for determining how long should be served under the life sentences infringed their . .
CitedHill v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-Apr-2004
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-4 ; Violation of Art. 5-5 ; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award
The claimant had been convicted of . .
CitedRoberts v Parole Board CA 28-Jul-2004
The discretionary life-prisoner faced a parole board. The Secretary of State wished to present evidence, but wanted the witness to be protected. The Parole Board appointed special counsel to hear the evidence on behalf of the prisoner on terms that . .
CitedHirst v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 6-Jul-2006
The prisoner had been released on licence but then recalled. He complained that the procedure infringed his human rights. He had been convicted of manslaughter, and was seen to be a long term danger. The court awarded him compensation saying that . .
CitedSecretary of State for Justice v Walker; Same v James CA 1-Feb-2008
The claimant had been sentenced to a short period of imprisonment but with an indeterminate term until he demonstrated that it was no longer necessary for the protection of the public. He complained that the term having expired, no opportunity had . .
CitedBrooke and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v The Parole Board and Another CA 1-Feb-2008
The claimant prisoner complained that the Parole Board was insufficiently independent of government to provide a fair hearing. The court at first instance had found that the relationship between the Parole Board and the sponsoring Department put the . .
CitedBlack, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice HL 21-Jan-2009
The appellant complained that the system for considering the release of a life prisoner did not comply with the Convention when the decision was made by the Secretary of State and not by the Parole Board, or the court. The Board had recommended his . .
CitedGoodwin v The United Kingdom ECHR 11-Jul-2002
The claimant was a post operative male to female trans-sexual. She claimed that her human rights were infringed when she was still treated as a man for National Insurance contributions purposes, where she continued to make payments after the age at . .
CitedWhiston, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 25-Oct-2012
The claimant was a prisoner released on a home detention licence, but his licence had been revoked. He now said that the way it had been revoked, without the respondent’s decision being subject to confirmation by the Parole Board, nor to other . .
CitedFaulkner, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another SC 1-May-2013
The applicants had each been given a life sentence, but having served the minimum term had been due to have the continued detention reviewed to establish whether or not continued detention was necessary for the protection of the pblic. It had not . .
CitedSturnham, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parole Board of England and Wales and Another (No 2) SC 3-Jul-2013
From 4 April 2005 until 3 December 2012, English law provided for the imposition of sentences of imprisonment for public protection (‘IPP’). The Court addressed the practical and legal issues resulting from the new system.
Held: The decision . .
CitedMartin Corey, Re for Judicial Review SC 4-Dec-2013
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 . .
CitedHaney 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.

Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing, Prisons, Torts – Other

Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.172162