Sturnham, Regina (on The Application of) v Parole Board, Secretary of State for Justice: Admn 14 Mar 2011

S was serving a term of life imprisonment. After serving the tariff, his detention should have been reviewed. After several serious delays, and a decision that he should instead be transferred to open conditions, he brought proceedings for judicial review challenging the lawfulness of the decision taken by the Parole Board following a hearing, and also the delay in holding that hearing.
Held: Mitting J rejected the challenge in respect of the lawfulness of the decision. However:
(1) Mr Sturnham’s rights under article 5(4) were breached in that the hearing before the Board did not take place until approximately six months had elapsed from the date on which it should have taken place. That delay resulted from the delay in the delivery of the dossier to the Board.
(2) There was no prospect that Mr Sturnham’s release would have been ordered if the hearing had taken place six months earlier.
(3) It was more likely than not that the Board would have directed Mr Sturnham’s transfer to open conditions six months earlier than occurred.
(4) Such a transfer would not necessarily have resulted in his earlier release. Nor would it have done so to a lower standard of probability.
(5) Mr Sturnham had been caused anxiety and distress by the delay.
Mitting J
[2011] EWHC 938 (Admin)
Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 28, European Convention on Human Rights 5(4)
AppliedGuntrip, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another Admn 9-Dec-2010
The claimant prisoner should have had his detention reviewed after serving the tariff part of his sentence. He sought damages for the delay. The first hearing before the Board, following the expiry of the tariff, had not taken place until about two . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromSturnham v Secretary of State for Justice CA 23-Feb-2012
The claimant life sentence prisoner had inter alia been detained after the expiry of his tarriff pending a review of whether his continued detention was required for public protection. That review had been delayed, and the claimant was awarded . .
At first InstanceFaulkner, 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 . .
At first instanceSturnham, 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 March 2021; Ref: scu.434867