Sturnham 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 andpound;300 for the associetd anxiety and distress. The Secretary appealed.
Held: Laws LJ took as his starting point the different treatment under the common law of wrongs in private law and in public law, and considered that an analogous distinction was reflected in some of the Strasbourg case law.
Laws, McFarlane, Patten LJJ
[2012] EWCA Civ 452, [2012] 3 WLR 476
Bailii
European Convention on Hman Rights 5(4), Crime Sentences Act 1997 28(6)(b)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromSturnham, 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 . .
CitedNikolova v Bulgaria ECHR 25-Mar-1999
(Grand Chamber) The claimant had been detained for long periods after coming under suspicion of theft of large sums. Her detention had initially been ordered by prosecutors. Her initial appeals against her detention were also decided by prosecutors. . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromFaulkner, 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 . .
Appeal fromSturnham, 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: 25 March 2021; Ref: scu.452826