In 1998, the prisoner had been sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. He had been released on licence after serving two thirds of that sentence, but then recalled on three occasions. He now sought unconditional release after serving three quarters of the original sentence.
Held: His appeal against refusal of his request for judicial review succeeded. The transitional rules which applied deprived him of the right to release after one half of the sentence, but his release would not be under licence. To find otherwise would contradict the rule that serving prisoners should not be adversely affected by changes brought in after sentence.
Lord Justice Longmore, Lord Justice Scott Baker and Lord Justice Hughes
[2006] EWCA Civ 1639, Times 06-Dec-2006, [2007] 1 WLR 608
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Commencement No 8 and Transitional and Savings Provisions) Order 2005 (SI 2005 No 950)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Stellato, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 31-Mar-2006
The prisoner sought judicial review of the decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to recall him to prison for breach of licence after December 27, 2005, when three quarters of his prison sentence had expired.
Held: The . .
See Also – Stellato, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 1-Dec-2006
. .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Stellato, Regina (on the Application of)v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 28-Feb-2007
The prisoner had served part of his ten year sentence, been released on licence and then recalled. He complained that the new parole system under which he had then to apply was invalid, having been made Parliament by negative resolution.
Held: . .
Cited – B (Algeria) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 8-Feb-2018
Bail conditions only after detention
B had been held under immigration detention, but released by SIAC, purportedly in conditional bail, after they found there was no realistic prospect of his deportation because he had not disclosed his true identity. The court was asked ‘whether . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2021; Ref: scu.246729 br>