Browne, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parole Board of England and Wales: Admn 31 Aug 2016

The Claimant, a determinate sentence prisoner, recalled to prison following his release on licence, sought Judicial Review of the decision of the Parole Board not to direct his re-release following an oral hearing.

Judges:

McKenna HCJ

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 2178 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.568829

Regina (Pearson Martinez and Hirst) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Others; Hirst v Attorney-General: QBD 17 Apr 2001

A law which removed a prisoner’s right to vote whilst in prison was not incompatible with his human rights. The implied right to vote under article 3 was not absolute, and states had a wide margin of appreciation as to how and to what extent the right should be limited, provided that the conditions should not curtail the rights to such an extent as to remove their effectiveness, and should only be imposed in pursuit of a legitimate aim, and should not be disproportionate.

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy

Citations:

Times 17-Apr-2001, Gazette 07-Jun-2001, [2001] EWHC Admin 239

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Representation of the People Act 1983 3 (1), European Convention on Human Rights 3

Cited by:

Appeal fromHirst v The United Kingdom (No. 2) ECHR 30-Mar-2004
(Commission) The prisoner alleged that the denial of his right to vote whilst in prison was disproportionate. He was serving a life sentence for manslaughter.
Held: The denial of a right to vote was in infringement of his rights and . .
Appeal fromHirst v United Kingdom (2) ECHR 6-Oct-2005
(Grand Chamber) The applicant said that whilst a prisoner he had been banned from voting. The UK operated with minimal exceptions, a blanket ban on prisoners voting.
Held: Voting is a right not a privilege. It was a right central in a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights, Elections, Prisons, Elections, Human Rights

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85999

British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Ahmad: Admn 11 Jan 2012

The BBC wished to interview the prisoner who had been detained pending extradition to the US since 2004, and now challenged decision to refuse the interview.
Held: The claim succeeded. The decision was quashed and must be retaken. If ever any case justified exceptional treatment, this was one. He had been held without trial for seven years, and had been seriously assaulted on his arrest. Whatever he was accused of had taken place in the UK, and the CPS had decided that there were insufficent grounds for a prosecution. The policy itself allowed exceptions to the writing only communications rule, and ‘even after giving appropriate weight to the views of the Secretary of State, the decision . . constitutes a disproportionate interference with the right to freedom of expression in article 10. In the circumstances of this particular case, the justification for that interference has not been ‘convincingly established’, as the jurisprudence on article 10 requires.’

Judges:

Hooper LJ, Singh J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 13 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii, Judiciary

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedWest Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette 14-Jun-1943
(United States Supreme Court) Jackson J said: ‘If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion . .
CitedHuang v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 21-Mar-2007
Appellate Roles – Human Rights – Families Split
The House considered the decision making role of immigration appellate authorities when deciding appeals on Human Rights grounds, against refusal of leave to enter or remain, under section 65. In each case the asylum applicant had had his own . .
CitedA v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Dec-2004
The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they . .
CitedRegina v British Broadcasting Corporation ex parte Pro-life Alliance HL 15-May-2003
The Alliance was a political party seeking to air its party election broadcast. The appellant broadcasters declined to broadcast the film on the grounds that it was offensive, being a graphical discussion of the processes of abortion.
Held: . .
CitedRegina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others HL 28-Oct-1999
(Orse Kebeline) The DPP’s appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for . .
CitedBladet Tromso and Stensaas v Norway ECHR 20-May-1999
A newspaper and its editor complained that their right to freedom of expression had been breached when they were found liable in defamation proceedings for statements in articles which they had published about the methods used by seal hunters in the . .
CitedHandyside v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Dec-1976
Freedom of Expression is Fundamental to Society
The appellant had published a ‘Little Red Schoolbook’. He was convicted under the 1959 and 1964 Acts on the basis that the book was obscene, it tending to deprave and corrupt its target audience, children. The book claimed that it was intended to . .
CitedThe Sunday Times (No 1) v The United Kingdom ECHR 26-Apr-1979
Offence must be ;in accordance with law’
The court considered the meaning of the need for an offence to be ‘in accordance with law.’ The applicants did not argue that the expression prescribed by law required legislation in every case, but contended that legislation was required only where . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Powis CA 1981
Material not available to the decision maker should not normally be admitted on an application for a judicial review of that decision. The court described three categories of acceptable new evidence: (1) evidence to show what material was before the . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State For The Home Department, Ex Parte Launder HL 13-Mar-1997
The question arose as to whether or not the decision of the Secretary of State to extradite the applicant to Hong Kong would have amounted to a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. Although the Convention was not at that time in force . .
CitedBamber v United Kingdom ECHR 11-Sep-1997
The Commission declared inadmissible a complaint that Standing Order 5 G 2B infringed Article 10. The Order precluded prisoners from contacting the media by telephone except in exceptional circumstances. The Standing Order satisfied the requirement . .
CitedNilsen v United Kingdom ECHR 9-Mar-2010
The applicant had been convicted of the most serious offences including several violent murders, and was held under a whole life tarriff. He wished to publish his autobiography from prison.
Held: The application was inadmissible. He had . .
CitedBergens Tidende And Others v Norway ECHR 2-May-2000
A newspaper complained that its rights under Article 10 of the Convention had been infringed by a libel action which a cosmetic surgeon had successfully brought against it in respect of defamatory articles it had published saying he was incompetent. . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Media, Human Rights

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.450213

Arbon v Anderson: 1943

The court was asked whether a cause of action arose from a breach of the Prison Rules 1933. Goddard LJ said: ‘With regard to the prison rules, it would be enough to say that there were no breaches, but, in case a higher court should take a different view, I should say that, in my opinion, neither do these rules confer rights on prisoners which can be enforced by action. They are made under the Prison Act 1898, section 2, for the ‘government of prisons’ .
The real question which falls to be determined is whether it is intended by the statute to confer an individual right. I am clearly of opinion that neither the Prison Act 1898, nor the rules were intended to confer any such right.’

Judges:

Goddard LJ

Citations:

[1943] KB 252

Statutes:

Prison Act 1898

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison, Ex parte Hague, Weldon v Home Office HL 24-Jul-1991
The prisoner challenged the decision to place him in segregation under Prison Rule 43. Under rule 43(1) the initial power to segregate was given to ‘the governor’. The case arose from the fact that the governor of one prison had purported to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.271096

Becker v Home Office: CA 1972

Mrs. Becker had started an action as trustee when she was sent to prison for obtaining credit as a bankrupt. She applied to leave prison in order to conduct her case. The Home Secretary made a direction for her production under Section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961 subject to her prepayment of the costs. She left prison 9 times to conduct her proceedings and andpound;8.17 was deducted from monies held on her behalf. In these proceedings she sued, inter alia, for the return of that sum. The County Court had found for her. The Home Secretary appealed.
Held: The appeal succeeded. A breach of the prison rules does not, per se, give rise to a cause of action against the governor or Home Office. The Prison Rules are mere ‘regulatory directions’.
Lord Denning MR drew a distinction between impeding access to the courts and allowing a party to attend court.
Stephenson LJ said: ‘Under Section 29(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1961, the Secretary of State has a discretionary power to allow him or her out of the place where the sentence is being served, but not out of Custody unless he otherwise directs : Section 29(2). A condition necessary to the exercise of this discretion is that he should be satisfied that the prisoners attendance at another place is desirable in the interests of justice or for the purposes of any public inquiry. If and only if satisfied of that, he may direct the prisoner to be taken to that place. Those words are, I think limited by their context and their history to the desirability of the prisoner leaving prison for the purposes of conducting litigation as a party or of giving evidence in his own or another’s litigation, criminal or civil.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Edmund Davies, Stephenson LJJ

Citations:

[1972] 2 QB 407

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1961 29

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison, Ex parte Hague, Weldon v Home Office HL 24-Jul-1991
The prisoner challenged the decision to place him in segregation under Prison Rule 43. Under rule 43(1) the initial power to segregate was given to ‘the governor’. The case arose from the fact that the governor of one prison had purported to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.271095

Nilsen v HM Prison Full Sutton and Another: CA 17 Nov 2004

The prisoner, a notorious murderer had begun to write his autobiography. His solicitor wished to return a part manuscript to him in prison to be finished. The prison did not allow it, and the prisoner claimed infringement of his article 10 rights.
Held: Section 47 of the Act speaks not only of regulation and management of prisons but control of prisoners, and one legitimate aspect of a sentence of imprisonment is that it renders subject to control the exercise of the prisoner’s freedom to express himself to those who are outside the prison. ‘We do not believe that any penal system could readily contemplate a regime in which a rapist or a murderer would be permitted to publish an article glorifying in the pleasure that his crime had caused him. English jurisprudence suggests that to restrict prisoners from publishing such matter is a legitimate exercise of the power conferred on the Secretary of State by the Prison Act. ‘

Judges:

Mr Justice Gage, Lord Justice Kennedy, Lord Phillips Master Of The Rolls

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1540, Times 23-Nov-2004, [2005] 1 WLR 1028

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights, Prison Rules 1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRaymond v Honey HL 4-Mar-1981
The defendant prison governor had intercepted a prisoner’s letter to the Crown Office for the purpose of raising proceedings to have the governor committed for an alleged contempt of court.
Held: The governor was in contempt of court. Subject . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State Home Department, ex parte Leech (No 2) CA 20-May-1993
Prison rules were ultra vires in so far as they provided for reading letters between prisoners and their legal advisers. Every citizen has a right of unimpeded access to the court. A prisoner’s unimpeded access to a solicitor for the purpose of . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Mellor CA 4-Apr-2001
A prisoner had no right to facilities to artificially inseminate his wife. In this case, he might not be released for several years, and there were no medical reasons advanced for finding exceptional reasons under the Department policy. Provided the . .
CitedBamber v United Kingdom ECHR 11-Sep-1997
The Commission declared inadmissible a complaint that Standing Order 5 G 2B infringed Article 10. The Order precluded prisoners from contacting the media by telephone except in exceptional circumstances. The Standing Order satisfied the requirement . .
CitedHirst v The United Kingdom (No. 2) ECHR 30-Mar-2004
(Commission) The prisoner alleged that the denial of his right to vote whilst in prison was disproportionate. He was serving a life sentence for manslaughter.
Held: The denial of a right to vote was in infringement of his rights and . .
CitedSilver And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Mar-1983
There had been interference with prisoners’ letters by prison authorities. The Commission considered Standing Orders and Circular Instructions in relation to restrictions on correspondence. The rules were not available to prisoners and were . .
Appeal fromNilsen, Regina (on the Application of) v Governor of HMP Full Sutton and Another Admn 19-Dec-2003
The prisoner complained that having written an autobiography, the manuscript materials had been withheld, and that this interfered with his rights of freedom of expression.
Held: Such an action by the prison authorities was not incompatible . .

Cited by:

Appealed toNilsen, Regina (on the Application of) v Governor of HMP Full Sutton and Another Admn 19-Dec-2003
The prisoner complained that having written an autobiography, the manuscript materials had been withheld, and that this interfered with his rights of freedom of expression.
Held: Such an action by the prison authorities was not incompatible . .
CitedO’Dowd (Boy George) v National Probation Service London Admn 23-Dec-2009
Refusal of curfew relaxation was reasonable
The claimant had been released from prison early on licence subject to conditions including a home detention curfew. He was offered a place on a TV programme, Celebrity Big Brother, which would require relaxation or alteration of his place of . .
CitedO’Dowd (Boy George) v National Probation Service London Admn 23-Dec-2009
Refusal of curfew relaxation was reasonable
The claimant had been released from prison early on licence subject to conditions including a home detention curfew. He was offered a place on a TV programme, Celebrity Big Brother, which would require relaxation or alteration of his place of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights, Media

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.219479

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Simms; ex parte O’Brien; ex parte Main: CA 9 Dec 1997

The removal of a prisoner’s right to talk to the press is part of the process of imprisonment. Prisoners’ letters could be read to the extent necessary to prove that they contained legally privileged material. A prisoner has no right to an oral interview (as opposed to correspondence) with a journalist who was willing to investigate his case and, if appropriate, to take up his case through the media.
Judge LJ said: ‘the starting point is to assume that a civil right is preserved unless it has been expressly removed or its loss is an inevitable consequence of lawful detention in custody.’ and ‘If he is visiting as a professional journalist, or intending to use the material obtained at interview in a professional capacity, it is difficult to accept that the limitation on the entitlement of the journalist to publish the contents of his communications with the prisoner infringes the prisoner’s right of free expression, at any rate in any way which significantly increases the inevitable interference with that right which follows incarceration. As the prisoner’s ability to communicate with journalists both orally and in writing is preserved, what in reality is at stake is the relationship between the journalist and those responsible for the secure administration of the prison. The potential for increased problems with security and discipline, staff, other inmates, and after conviction, with victims or their families, all underline the need for control of such visits to be vested in and exercised by the governor. This is what the regulatory framework is intended to achieve and in the circumstances I have concluded that the restriction currently under consideration is not ultra vires.’
Kennedy LJ: ‘In my judgment a convicted prisoner has no right to communicate orally with the media through a journalist. The loss of that ‘right,’ if it can properly be so described, is part and parcel a sentence of imprisonment. . . . I would therefore reject the vires argument which found favour with the judge and allow the appeal. Insofar as Mr. Owen sought to contend that the requirement of a written undertaking was and is irrational, disproportionate or otherwise unjustifiable, I would reject that submission, . . .’

Judges:

Judge LJ, Kennedy LJ, Chadwick LJ

Citations:

Gazette 08-Jan-1998, Times 09-Dec-1997, [1999] QB 349

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Ian Simms and Michael Alan Mark O’Brien QBD 19-Dec-1996
A full restriction on the use of material emanating from a prison visit was unlawful as an interference with the right of free speech of the prisoner: ‘The blanket prohibition on making use of material obtained in a visit is not, on the evidence . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
CitedKelly (A Minor) v British Broadcasting Corporation FD 25-Jul-2000
K, aged 16, had left home to join what was said to be a religious sect. His whereabouts were unknown. He had been made a ward of court and the Official Solicitor was appointed to represent his interests. He had sent messages to say that he was well . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.87908

Regina (Carman) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: QBD 30 Jul 2004

The prisoner sought to challenge the terms set for his release on licence.
Held: in this case there were exceptional circumstances to justify an alteration in the terms. The board had not given regard to the actual matters for which the prisoner had been sentenced. However the court made it clear that such challenges should normally be resisted by the courts save in such exceptional cases.

Judges:

Moses J

Citations:

Times 11-Oct-2004

Prisons

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.216375

Regina v Governor of Whitemoor Prison, Ex parte Main: QBD 1999

The court considered whether prison staff should be able to read letters between a prisoner and his legal advisers before proceedings were actually commenced.
Held: The policy represented the minimum intrusion into the rights of prisoners consistent with the need to maintain security, order and discipline in prisons. Kennedy LJ ‘In my judgment legal professional privilege does attach to correspondence with legal advisers which is stored by a prisoner in his cell, and accordingly such correspondence is to be protected from any unnecessary interference by prison staff. Even if the correspondence is only inspected to see that it is what it purports to be that is likely to impair the free flow of communication between a convicted or remand prisoner on the one hand and his legal adviser on the other, and therefore it constitutes an impairment of the privilege.’ Judge LJ ‘Prisoners whose cells are searched in their absence will find it difficult to believe that their correspondence has been searched but not read. The governor’s order will sometimes be disobeyed. Accordingly I am prepared to accept the potential ‘chilling effect’ of such searches.’

Judges:

Kennedy LJ, Judge LJ

Citations:

[1999] QB 349

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See alsoRegina v Governor of HM Prison Whitemoor ex parte Main Admn 17-Feb-1997
. .

Cited by:

See AlsoRegina v Governor of HM Prison Whitemoor ex parte Main Admn 17-Feb-1997
. .
CitedRegina (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 23-May-2001
A prison policy requiring prisoners not to be present when their property was searched and their mail was examined was unlawful. The policy had been introduced after failures in search procedures where officers had been intimidated by the presence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Legal Professions

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.190129

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Pegg: QBD 9 Aug 1994

The procedures for assessing lifer release questions are unfair. A higher standard is required of decision makers. The parole board should give reasons for a refusal to release where exemplary reports had been submitted on behalf of the prisoner.

Citations:

Independent 09-Aug-1994, Times 11-Aug-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.87892

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Ian Simms and Michael Alan Mark O’Brien: QBD 19 Dec 1996

A full restriction on the use of material emanating from a prison visit was unlawful as an interference with the right of free speech of the prisoner: ‘The blanket prohibition on making use of material obtained in a visit is not, on the evidence before me, therefore justified as the minimum interference necessary with the right of free speech to meet the statutory objectives.’ However the court upheld the need to regulate access by professional journalists acting as such to prisons and prisoners: ‘There is no doubt that restrictions on visits are necessary for the proper regulation and management of prisons, and for the treatment, discipline and control of inmates. It seems to me to be entirely proper that the primary restriction should be that the only visitors should be family and friends. This accords with the general and beneficial policy to ensure that, so far as possible, an inmate retains his family and social connections. Beyond those categories there has to be some justification, it seems to me, for a visit, in order to ensure that access to inmates is not exploited for purposes which could be inimical to proper management of and discipline within prisons.’ and ‘I consider that a restriction preventing an inmate from communicating orally with the media in a visit unless the representative of the media gives an undertaking not to use the material obtained at that visit is a restriction on the right of free speech. . . . The test is whether or not the restriction is necessary in order to achieve the statutory objectives. In the present context, these objectives include the need to keep visits within sensible bounds for the ordinary management of the prison, and the discipline and control of inmates. This clearly entitles rules to be made which preclude access to the media, in any form, merely for the purposes of purveying general complaints, tittle tattle or other material which may be mischievous or offensive. In particular, as was recognised in Bamber, proper discipline and control includes consideration of the effect of inmates’ activities on others. I am therefore quite satisfied that Rule 33(1) is lawful in including ‘the interests of any persons’ as a material consideration when deciding what restrictions are appropriate on communications between inmates and others. It follows, in my view, that the prohibition on communicating with the media by letter save where the inmate is making serious representations about his or her conviction or sentence. or is otherwise part of a serious comment about crime, the processes of justice or the penal system, meets the Leech test of being the minimum interference necessary to achieve the statutory objectives.’

Judges:

Latham J

Citations:

Times 17-Jan-1997, [1996] EWHC Admin 388

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prison Act 1952 47, European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Secretary of State Home Department, ex parte Leech (No 2) CA 20-May-1993
Prison rules were ultra vires in so far as they provided for reading letters between prisoners and their legal advisers. Every citizen has a right of unimpeded access to the court. A prisoner’s unimpeded access to a solicitor for the purpose of . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Simms; ex parte O’Brien; ex parte Main CA 9-Dec-1997
The removal of a prisoner’s right to talk to the press is part of the process of imprisonment. Prisoners’ letters could be read to the extent necessary to prove that they contained legally privileged material. A prisoner has no right to an oral . .
At first instanceRegina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.87906

Regina (on the application of R) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: QBD 12 Dec 2003

The decision to designate a prisoner with mental difficulties as a ‘technical lifer’ was not a sentencing exercise requiring a right for the issue to be heard before a court, and it remained a decision for the respondent.

Judges:

Munby J

Citations:

Times 09-Jan-2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina 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.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Prisons

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.190499

Regina (Wright) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 2001

A serving prisoner suffered a severe asthmatic attack in his cell and died. An inquest was held at which the family of the deceased were present, but unrepresented for want of legal aid. There was no inquiry into the quality of the medical treatment the deceased had received in prison, but the responsible medical officer had been suspended from duty and had previously been found guilty of serious professional misconduct. In an action against the Home Secretary liability was admitted, thus precluding forensic investigation of the case. The family sought judicial review on the grounds, among others, of a failure to protect the life of the deceased and a failure of the procedural obligation arising under article 2 of the Convention to investigate the circumstances of the death.
Held: An investigation, to satisfy article 2, must have certain features, being independent, effective, reasonably prompt, with sufficient public scrutiny, and the next of kin must be involved to an appropriate extent. ‘Where the victim has died and it is arguable that there has been a breach of article 2, the investigation should have the general features identified by the court in Jordan v United Kingdom at paras 106-109’. On the facts that there had been no effective official investigation into the death of the deceased and held that there should be an independent investigation, to be held in public, at which the family should be represented.

Judges:

Jackson J

Citations:

[2001] UKHRR 1399, [2001] EWHC Admin 520, [2001] LLR (Med) 478

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedJordan v United Kingdom; McKerr v United Kingdom; similar ECHR 4-May-2001
Proper Investigation of Deaths with Army or Police
Claims were made as regards deaths of alleged terrorists in clashes with the UK armed forces and police. In some cases the investigations necessary to justify the taking of life had been inadequate. Statements made to the inquiry as to the . .

Cited by:

CitedAmin, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Oct-2003
Prisoner’s death – need for full public enquiry
The deceased had been a young Asian prisoner. He was placed in a cell overnight with a prisoner known to be racist, extremely violent and mentally unstable. He was killed. The family sought an inquiry into the death.
Held: There had been a . .
CitedAmin, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Oct-2003
Prisoner’s death – need for full public enquiry
The deceased had been a young Asian prisoner. He was placed in a cell overnight with a prisoner known to be racist, extremely violent and mentally unstable. He was killed. The family sought an inquiry into the death.
Held: There had been a . .
CitedIn re McKerr (Northern Ireland) HL 11-Mar-2004
The deceased had been shot by soldiers of the British Army whilst in a car in Northern Ireland. The car was alleged to have ‘run’ a checkpoint. The claimants said the investigation, now 20 years ago, had been inadequate. The claim was brought under . .
CitedD, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 28-Apr-2005
D was undergoing trial for offences and was held in prison. He self-harmed repeatedly, and was recorded to require extra vigilance. He attempted to hang himself. Prison staff saved his life, but he was left paraplegic, and was then detained under . .
CitedTakoushis, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Coroner for Inner North London and others CA 30-Nov-2005
Relatives sought judicial review of the coroner’s decision not to allow a jury, and against allowance of an expert witness. The deceased had been a mental patient but had been arrested with a view to being hospitalised. He was taken first to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.186854

Regina v Parole Board and Another ex parte Wilson: CA 6 May 1992

It was natural justice to allow a discretionary lifer to see the reports which had been prepared for consideration on his application for release on licence. W had been sentenced to life imprisonment for buggery, and was a discretionary life prisoner. The report iindicated that he might still be a risk if released on licence.
Held: He could not make use of the right to make representations if he was not told of the allegations against him. Natural justice required that he be given the information.

Judges:

Taylor LJ

Citations:

Gazette 06-May-1992, [1992] QB 740, [1992] 2 WLR 707

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Chief Constable of North Wales Police and Others Ex Parte Thorpe and Another; Regina v Chief Constable for North Wales Police Area and others ex parte AB and CB CA 18-Mar-1998
Public Identification of Pedophiles by Police
AB and CB had been released from prison after serving sentences for sexual assaults on children. They were thought still to be dangerous. They moved about the country to escape identification, and came to be staying on a campsite. The police sought . .
AdoptedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody and Others HL 25-Jun-1993
A mandatory lifer is to be permitted to suggest the period of actual sentence to be served. The Home Secretary must give reasons for refusing a lifer’s release. What fairness requires in any particular case is ‘essentially an intuitive judgment’, . .
CitedRoberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .
ApprovedRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department Ex Parte Hickey and Others, Same Ex Parte Bamber; Same Ex Parte Malone (No 2) QBD 29-Nov-1994
The Home Secretary is obliged to disclose new evidence to a defendant before rejecting his application for a reference to Court of Appeal. The Home Secretary’s powers to refer a case back to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) was an integral . .
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 . .
CitedOsborn v The Parole Board SC 9-Oct-2013
Three prisoners raised questions as to the circumstances in which the Parole Board is required to hold an oral hearing before making an adverse decision. One of the appeals (Osborn) concerned a determinate sentence prisoner who was released on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Natural Justice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.87525

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Hickling: CA 1986

Rules enabled the Secretary of State to permit a woman prisoner to have her baby with her in prison, subject to any conditions he thought fit. The Secretary of State had issued a general instruction laying down criteria for admission to a mother and baby unit, together with the procedures to be followed. It stated that the final decision in a particular case should rest with the governor. The governor could arrange for the removal of the baby if he considered that the mother’s behaviour might threaten the serious disruption of the unit or the safety of the baby or other babies in the unit.
Held: The instructions laid down the conditions on which the Secretary of State permitted women prisoners to have their babies with them in prison, as contemplated by the relevant rule. Eveleigh LJ stated that it was not a case of the Secretary of State delegating his authority, but of his laying down conditions which must be fulfilled. Since those conditions addressed matters which the governor was best placed to judge, it was right to allow the governor to decide if they were not being complied with.

Judges:

Eveleigh LJ

Citations:

[1986] 1 FLR 543

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBourgass and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 29-Jul-2015
The Court considered the procedures when a prisoner is kept in solitary confinement, otherwise described as ‘segregation’ or ‘removal from association’, and principally whether decisions to keep the appellants in segregation for substantial periods . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.591145

Hassan v Secretary of State for Justice: Admn 27 May 2011

The claimant prisoner complained that his confinement to a segregation unit had been unlawful.
Held: A period of segregation in HMP Full Sutton for some seven weeks ‘did not interfere with the claimant’s Article 8 rights as a prisoner sufficiently significantly as to require justification’

Judges:

Ouseley J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 1359 (Admin)

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Cited by:

CitedKing, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 27-Mar-2012
In each case the prisoners challenged their transfer to cellular confinement or segregation within prison or YOI, saying that the transfers infringed their rights under Article 6, saying that domestic law, either in itself or in conjunction with . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Torts – Other

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.440230

Wakenshaw, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: Admn 7 Aug 2018

Assertion that Parole Board lacked necessary independence to determine whether the claimant prisoner should be eligible for release after completion of indeterminate sentence of imprisonment.
Held: The court particularly considered the issue of tenure, where a member of the Board might be removed for failures of different kinds, but without the possibility of review, in the light of pressure applied politically for the removal of the Chair of the Parole Board. The court granted permission for the judicial review to go ahead with a declaration sought: ‘That the period of appointment (three or four years, renewable for three or four years) of Parole Board members coupled with the power of the Secretary of State to remove a member if he is satisfied that he or she has failed without reasonable excuse to discharge the functions of his or her office for a continuous period of at least three months, or is unable to discharge the functions of the office, without recourse to any procedure or machinery to determine the merit of a decision to remove him or her on one or other of these grounds, means that the provisions for tenure of Parole Board membership fail the test of objective independence.’

Judges:

Mostyn J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 2089 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons, Human Rights, Legal Professions

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621165

Hall, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: Admn 27 Jul 2018

The claimant prisoner said that the defendant had failed to make reasonable adjustments as required under the 2010 Act for his disability of autism.

Judges:

Moulder J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 1905 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons, Discrimination

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620645

D, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Inquest Intervening): CA 28 Feb 2006

The respondent appealed from orders made as to the conduct of an investigation into an attempted suicide in prison. The judge had severely criticised the appellant’s treatment of the case.
Held: The appeal failed. The court recited the requirements for an independent inquiry into such an incident in custody. The judge was correct to require an inquiry in public with representation for the family. The original proposal had now been overtaken by the 2005 Act. The Act did not provide a right to cross examine witnesses. That must be a matter for the discretion of the judge.
The family must be able to participate effectively in the inquest.

Judges:

Lord Justice Dyson Lord Justice Tuckey Sir Anthony Clarke MR

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 143, Times 21-Mar-2006, [2006] 3 All ER 946, [2006] HRLR 24

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3, Inquiries Act 2005

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedJordan v United Kingdom; McKerr v United Kingdom; similar ECHR 4-May-2001
Proper Investigation of Deaths with Army or Police
Claims were made as regards deaths of alleged terrorists in clashes with the UK armed forces and police. In some cases the investigations necessary to justify the taking of life had been inadequate. Statements made to the inquiry as to the . .
CitedEdwards v The United Kingdom ECHR 14-Mar-2002
The deceased, a young man of mixed race, had been placed in a cell with another prisoner who was known to be violent, racist, and mentally unstable. The staff knew that the panic button was defective. The deceased was murdered by his cell-mate. His . .
CitedAmin, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Oct-2003
Prisoner’s death – need for full public enquiry
The deceased had been a young Asian prisoner. He was placed in a cell overnight with a prisoner known to be racist, extremely violent and mentally unstable. He was killed. The family sought an inquiry into the death.
Held: There had been a . .
CitedMiddleton, Regina (on the Application of) v Coroner for the Western District of Somerset HL 11-Mar-2004
The deceased had committed suicide in prison. His family felt that the risk should have been known to the prison authorities, and that they had failed to guard against that risk. The coroner had requested an explanatory note from the jury.
CitedTakoushis, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Coroner for Inner North London and others CA 30-Nov-2005
Relatives sought judicial review of the coroner’s decision not to allow a jury, and against allowance of an expert witness. The deceased had been a mental patient but had been arrested with a view to being hospitalised. He was taken first to the . .
CitedGoodson v HM Coroner for Bedfordshire and Luton and Another (No 2) CA 12-Oct-2005
The applicant intended to appeal refusal of her challenge to the verdict of the coroner. For the first time at appeal she sought a protective costs order.
Held: The Corner House case established that a request for a protective costs order . .
CitedOneryildiz v Turkey ECHR 30-Nov-2004
(Grand Chamber) The applicant had lived with his family in a slum bordering on a municipal household refuse tip. A methane explosion at the tip resulted in a landslide which engulfed the applicant’s house killing his close relatives.
Held: The . .
CitedMenson v United Kingdom ECHR 6-May-2003
There had been a racist attack. The victim was set on fire and killed in the street by assailants. His relatives sought compensation. However the assailants were not agents of the state and they were duly prosecuted, convicted and sentenced. No . .
CitedCommissioner of Police for the Metropolis v Reeves (Joint Administratix of The Estate of Martin Lynch, Deceased) HL 15-Jul-1999
The deceased was a prisoner known to be at risk of committing suicide. Whilst in police custody he hanged himself in his prison cell. The Commissioner accepted that he was in breach of his duty of care to the deceased, but not that that breach was . .
Appeal fromD, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 28-Apr-2005
D was undergoing trial for offences and was held in prison. He self-harmed repeatedly, and was recorded to require extra vigilance. He attempted to hang himself. Prison staff saved his life, but he was left paraplegic, and was then detained under . .

Cited by:

CitedJL, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice; Regina (L (A Patient)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 26-Nov-2008
The prisoner was left with serious injury after attempting suicide in prison. He said that there was a human rights duty to hold an investigation into the circumstances leading up to this.
Held: There existed a similar duty to hold an enhanced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights, Coroners

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.238756

Regina v Secretary of State Home Department, Ex Parte Duggan: QBD 9 Dec 1993

A High Security prisoner is to know the gist of report and reasons for his categorisation: ‘on the first and subsequent annual reviews, fairness, in my view, requires that the gist of the reports be revealed in order to give the opportunity for comment’. What the prisoner is entitled to is ‘to be informed of the gist of any matter of fact and/or opinion relevant to the determination of his security category’.

Judges:

Rose LJ

Citations:

Times 09-Dec-1993, [1994] 3 All ER 277

Citing:

AppliedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody and Others HL 25-Jun-1993
A mandatory lifer is to be permitted to suggest the period of actual sentence to be served. The Home Secretary must give reasons for refusing a lifer’s release. What fairness requires in any particular case is ‘essentially an intuitive judgment’, . .

Cited by:

CitedLord, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 1-Sep-2003
The claimant was a category A prisoner serving a sentence of life imprisonment for murder. He sought the reasons for his categorisation as a Class A prisoner. Unhappy at the disclosure made, he sought information under the 1998 Act. It was argued . .
CitedRegina v Chief Constable of North Wales Police and Others Ex Parte Thorpe and Another; Regina v Chief Constable for North Wales Police Area and others ex parte AB and CB CA 18-Mar-1998
Public Identification of Pedophiles by Police
AB and CB had been released from prison after serving sentences for sexual assaults on children. They were thought still to be dangerous. They moved about the country to escape identification, and came to be staying on a campsite. The police sought . .
ApprovedRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte McAvoy CA 3-Dec-1997
A prisoner had the right to know the gist (though not the full contents) of reports used in deciding on a review of his security status. (Lord Woolf MR) ‘For my part, I accept that it is desirable, when something has the impact which being placed in . .
CitedRoberts, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 12-Mar-2004
The claimant complained at a decision not to reduce his Category A status to that of a category B prisoner. He continued to maintain his innocence of the murders for which he had been convicted. He was therefore ineligible to take part in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.87983

Regina v Secretary of State Home Dept ex parte Wynne: HL 17 Mar 1993

A prisoner wishing to appear at court in civil proceedings needed under the Act to apply for his own production to court, and to make arrangement for payment of the costs of being produced at court.
Held: A Legislature could so provide even though it interfered with the right of access to the courts.
Courts should be very reluctant to take cases which appeared to be merely hypothetical.
Lord Goff said: ‘It is well established that this House does not decide hypothetical questions. If the House were to do so, any conclusion, and the accompanying reasons, could in their turn constitute no more than obiter dicta expressed without the assistance of a concrete factual situation, and would not constitute a binding precedent for the future’.

Judges:

Lord Goff

Citations:

Gazette 17-Mar-1993, [1993] 1 WLR 115, [1993] 1 All ER 574

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1961 29(1)

Cited by:

CitedRegina (W) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and Another CA 11-May-2006
The Commissioner appealed against a declaration that an authorisation given for creation of a dispersal area was unlawful.
Held: The proceedings appeared at first to be merely hypothetical, but the issue as to whether a police officer had use . .
CitedAVS v A NHS Foundation Trust and Another CA 17-Jan-2011
The claimant contracted sporadic Creutzfeldt Jakob’s Disease disease. He executed a Lasting Power of Attorney in favour of his brother, expressing to him that he should do whatever was possible to protract his life. The brother now sought treatment . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Prisons

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.87991

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department Ex Parte Hickey and Others, Same Ex Parte Bamber; Same Ex Parte Malone (No 2): QBD 29 Nov 1994

The Home Secretary is obliged to disclose new evidence to a defendant before rejecting his application for a reference to Court of Appeal. The Home Secretary’s powers to refer a case back to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) was an integral part of the just functioning of the overall process of criminal justice. A decision maker may treat submissions about the decision differently if they are only allowed after it has been made when ‘it is difficult to suppose that [a decision maker] can remain as open-minded as if no clear decision has been taken’ and ‘The guiding principle should always be that sufficient disclosure should be given to enable the petitioner properly to present his best case.’

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ

Citations:

Independent 29-Nov-1994, Times 02-Dec-1994, [1995] 1 WLR 734

Statutes:

Criminal Appeal Act 1968 17

Citing:

ApprovedRegina v Parole Board and Another ex parte Wilson CA 6-May-1992
It was natural justice to allow a discretionary lifer to see the reports which had been prepared for consideration on his application for release on licence. W had been sentenced to life imprisonment for buggery, and was a discretionary life . .

Cited by:

CitedSecretary of State for the Home Department v SP CA 21-Dec-2004
The applcant, a girl aged 17 was in a young offender institution. She complained that she had been removed to segregation without first giving her chance to be heard. The respondent argued that there were sufficient post decision safeguards to . .
CitedRoberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .
See AlsoRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Bamber CA 15-Feb-1996
The right of a prisoner to provide a recorded message for a radio station could properly be curtailed. . .
See AlsoBamber v United Kingdom ECHR 11-Sep-1997
The Commission declared inadmissible a complaint that Standing Order 5 G 2B infringed Article 10. The Order precluded prisoners from contacting the media by telephone except in exceptional circumstances. The Standing Order satisfied the requirement . .
See AlsoRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department (ex parte Bamber) Admn 24-Apr-1998
The applicant was refused leave to apply for judicial review of a decision as to his release made on the basis of his refusal to accept his guilt. . .
See AlsoBamber v Regina CACD 12-Dec-2002
. .
See AlsoBamber, Regina v CACD 14-May-2009
The defendant had been convicted in 1986 of the murder of five members of his adoptive family. The judge had initially recommended a minimum term of 25 years. A later judge had suggested a whole life term. The convictions had been upheld in 2002. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Administrative, Prisons

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.87750

Regina v Parole Board Ex Parte White: QBD 16 Dec 1994

The concept of ‘risk’ was not confined to risk to the United Kingdom public alone, as a result of which the Parole Board is entitled, indeed, in an appropriate case, required, to take into account the risk to the public in a country to which a released prisoner will go, once he is released.

Citations:

Times 30-Dec-1994

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1991 34(4)(b)

Cited by:

CitedSecretary of State for the Home Department v Hindawi and Headley CA 13-Oct-2004
The applicant was a foreign national serving a long-term prison sentence. He complained that UK nationals would have had their case referred to the parole board before his.
Held: The right to be referred to the parole board was a statutory . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.87528

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another, Ex Parte Willis: QBD 9 Mar 2000

A prisoner having been sentenced to serve less than four years applied for consideration for early release under an electronic tagging home detention scheme. He was refused because he would have to register on release with the Police as a sex offender, and such individuals were subject to special rules set by the Home Secretary. The applicant had not been allowed to see the materials upon which the decision had been made. He should be allowed to see the material upon which the decision was based only if it went against the prisoner’s assertion of such exceptional circumstances. Such prisoners posed a special risk, and the requirement for exceptional circumstances was not unlawful or irrational.

Citations:

Times 22-Mar-2000, Gazette 09-Mar-2000

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1991 34A 37A, Sex Offenders Act 1997

Criminal Sentencing, Prisons

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85515

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Others, Ex Parte Russell: QBD 31 Aug 2000

An order by a prison governor that a prisoner must submit to a random drug test depended for its lawfulness upon the selection being genuinely random. The order to submit and the order to attend for the test could not be separated. Although in fact the repeated selection of the prisoner, whilst genuinely random, had not been under circumstances where the method and implications of selection had been properly explained. Accordingly the order to attend was unlawful, and the court declined to exercise any discretion to allow the punishment to stand.

Citations:

Times 31-Aug-2000

Statutes:

Prisons Act 19525 16A, Prison Rules 1999 (1999 No 728) 46A, Prison (Amendment) Rules 2000 (2000 No 1794)

Torts – Other, Prisons

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85516

Home Office v Barnes and Others: QBD 23 Nov 1994

Prison officers may not, in the course of an employment dispute, refuse to accept prisoners into the prison after they had been properly committed to the care of the prison in which they worked.

Citations:

Independent 23-Nov-1994

Statutes:

Prisons Act 1952 8

Employment, Administrative, Prisons

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81457

Hussein v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another: Admn 1 Feb 2018

The claimants, adult men of the Muslim faith detained at an immigration removal centre claimed that the conditions and regime interfered with their required religious observance as, they say, devout Muslims, and that the conditions and regime had a differential and discriminatory impact upon them as Muslims, not experienced by those of other faiths or of no faith at all. This is said to follow from a combination of the hours of ‘lock-in’ when detainees coukld not leave their rooms; the required times of Muslim prayer; room sharing; and the presence within the room of a lavatory cubicle without a door.

Judges:

Holman J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 213 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Equality Act 2010 149

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons, Human Rights, Discrimination

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605604

Razumas v Ministry of Justice: QBD 12 Feb 2018

The claiimant sought damages against the ministry as a prisoner, he said that his medical treatment was so poor that he lost his leg unnecessarily.
Held: The claim failed.

Judges:

Cockerill J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 215 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons, Negligence, Human Rights

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.604812

Ministry of Justice v The Prison Officers’ Association: QBD 19 Jul 2017

The Minister sought an order to restrain the respondent Association distributing to its members a leaflet recommending withdrawal of ‘voluntary activities’
Held: Order granted.

Judges:

Jay J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1839 (QB), [2017] WLR(D) 485

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons, Employment

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.591310

AB (A Child), Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice: Admn 4 Jul 2017

Complaint was made that the child detained in a Young Offender Institute had, because of his challenging behaviour been held in effective solitary confinement.

Judges:

Ouseley J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1694 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons, Human Rights, Children

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.588898

Bowen v Secretary of State for Justice: CA 20 Dec 2017

The appellants challenged dismissal of their claims for judicial review of their detention following conviction and for alleged breaches by the respondent of public law duty and violation of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Each complained of the delays in their release following decisions by the Parole Board for licensed release.

Judges:

Sir Terence Etherton MR. McCombe LJ, Sir Ernest Ryder SPT

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 2181

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Eurpean Convention on Hman Rights

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime, Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.602601

Purcell and Another v Public Prosecutor of Antwerp and Another: Admn 31 Jul 2017

Adjourned hearing of two joined applications against decisions to order the extradition of individuals to Belgium pursuant to European arrest warrants. The decisions are challenged on the basis that prison conditions in Belgium violate the appellants’ rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Judges:

Hamblen LJ, Ouseley J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1981 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Extradition, Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.593602

Bruton, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice: Admn 28 Jul 2017

Claim for judicial review is the legality of the decision of the Defendant to refuse to direct the release of the Claimant from prison on compassionate grounds relating to the health of his mother.

Judges:

Pushpinder Saini QC DJHC

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1967 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.591658

Henley-Smith, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: Admn 28 Jul 2017

Application for judicial review of the failure of the Defendant to consult upon, and then exercise, the power within section 128 of the 2012 Act as a means of relaxing the test for the release of prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for public protection

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1948 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.591663

Mormoroc, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice: CA 17 Jul 2017

Appeal from refusal of judicial review of date set for release from prison – release on home detention curfew

Judges:

Gross, Lindblom, Flaux LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 989, [2017] WLR(D) 495

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 2003 246

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.591187

Hussain, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parole Board for England and Wales and Another: CA 20 Jul 2017

Failure on the part of the Parole Board (occasioned by the huge pressures which it is under) to convene a required hearing within the timetable set by the Parole Board Rules.

Judges:

Gloster VP CA, Davis, Beatson LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 1074, [2017] WLR(D) 499

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.591184

Dixon, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice: CA 14 Jul 2017

Appeal by D, a former prisoner serving a life sentence at HMP Manchester who was eventually released from custody on licence on 30 March 2015. He had previously been released on licence in February 2011, but was recalled to prison in October 2012 following his arrest on charges of involvement in offences of murder, attempted murder and causing an explosion. After a five month trial he was acquitted of those charges, but remained in custody pending further consideration of his case by the parole board.

Judges:

Raffery, Sir Ernest Ryder SPT, Henderson LJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 961

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.589926

QUB v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 28 Jun 2017

Claim for judicial review, the Claimant challenges the lawfulness of the Defendant’s decisions to detain him in February 2016, and to continue to detain him until March 2016, when he was released.

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1494 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Discrimination, Prisons, Immigration

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588891

Scarfe and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v HMP Woodhill and Another: Admn 23 May 2017

The Claimants sought to challenge ‘the Defendants’ failures to comply with their public law, common law and article 2 ECHR duties to protect prisoners at HMP Woodhill from suicide’, failures which they contended were ‘ongoing’, including a declaration that the Defendants had breached those duties and an order requiring them to comply with the mandatory provisions of national prison policy.

Judges:

Irwin LJ, Garnham J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1194 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.584236

William Faulkner v The United Kingdom: ECHR 10 Mar 2011

A single letter had not been sent on from a prisoner to the Scottish Minister of State. A violation of article 8 was found. The interference was not ‘in accordance with the law’ nor ‘necessary in a democratic society’ for any reason permitted by article 8(2). However, the annoyance and frustration from the failure to send this one letter was not of an intensity to justify awarding damages and so the court considered that finding of violation was sufficient just satisfaction.

Citations:

[2011] ECHR 602

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

See AlsoWilliam Faulkner v The United Kingdom ECHR 4-Jun-2002
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings . .

Cited by:

CitedBruton v The Governor of HMP Swaleside and Another Admn 19-Apr-2017
The prisoner complained that his protected correspondence had been wrongfully opened by prison staff. Despite a finding in his favour by the Prisons Ombudsman, the service had repeatedly failed either to change its behaviour or to apologise.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.582169

Hassett and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice: CA 4 May 2017

‘This case concerns the standard of procedural fairness required to be observed by the Secretary of State’s Category A Review Team (‘the CART’) and the Deputy Director of Custody – High Security (‘the Director’) and his advisory panel when deciding whether to maintain a prisoner’s security classification in prison as Category A.’

Judges:

Black, Sales, Moylan LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 331, [2017] WLR(D) 304

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.582107

Youngsam, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parole Board: Admn 7 Apr 2017

The claimant challenged being recalled to prison from licence after being found in an area from which he was excluded as a condition of his parole.

Judges:

Turner J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 729 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5, Criminal Justice Act 2003 244 254

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedWhiston, Regina (on The Application of) SC 2-Jul-2014
The claimant, having been released from prison on licence, objected to the procedure whereby his licence was revoked with no means for him to challenge that decision.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Article 5(4) did not apply to the particular . .
CitedQuinn v Leathem HL 5-Aug-1901
Unlawful Means Conspiracy has two forms
Quinn was treasurer of a Belfast butchers’ association. Leathem, who traded as a butcher, employed some non-union men, although when the union made difficulties he asked for them to be admitted to the union, and offered to pay their dues. The union . .
CitedBehrens v Bartram Mill Circus QBD 1957
Devlin J said that the ratio decidendi consists of the reason or reasons for a decision which the judge who gives it wishes to have the full authority of precedent. . .
Dicta approvedKadhim v Housing Benefit Board, London Borough of Brent CA 20-Dec-2000
A lower court was not bound to follow a decision of a higher court, where the decision at issue had been based, on the relevant point, on an unargued assumption about the law, which had in turn been pivotal to the decision of that higher court: ‘The . .
CitedLawrence v South Country Freeholds Ltd ChD 1939
Simonds J held that on the facts before him no general scheme of development existed. It was accordingly not necessary to determine what rights as between the sub-purchasers there might have been if the main scheme had been held to exist. However, . .
Dicta approvedBrunner v Greenslade ChD 1971
Megarry J discussed the ratio decidendi of and approving dicta in Lawrence.
‘The substance of the views of Simonds J was that where there is a head scheme, any sub-purchasers are bound inter se by the covenants of that head scheme even though . .
CitedPractice Statement (Judicial Precedent) HL 1966
The House gave guidance how it would treat an invitation to depart from a previous decision of the House. Such a course was possible, but the direction was not an ‘open sesame’ for a differently constituted committee to prefer their views to those . .
CitedRegina v Parole Board ex parte Smith, Regina v Parole Board ex parte West (Conjoined Appeals) HL 27-Jan-2005
Each defendant challenged the way he had been treated on revocation of his parole licence, saying he should have been given the opportunity to make oral representations.
Held: The prisoners’ appeals were allowed.
Lord Bingham stated: . .
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 . .
CitedVirgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd SC 3-Jul-2013
Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd sought to recover damages exceeding 49,000,000 pounds for the infringement of a European Patent which did not exist in the form said to have been infringed. The Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Litigation Practice, Prisons, Constitutional

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581637

YZ, Regina (on The Application of) v Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust and Another: CA 29 Mar 2017

Challenge by way of judicial review to the decision made by a psychiatrist at Oxleas, the first respondent, which operates a Medium Secure Unit for psychiatric patients in Dartford, Kent, to seek to transfer the claimant to Broadmoor Hospital and the decision of Broadmoor to accept him.

Judges:

Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, CJ, Hallett, Underhill LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 203

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health, Prisons

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581300

Johnson, Regina v: CACD 10 Mar 2017

Appeal against conviction (on plea) of smuggling drugs and mobile SIM cards into prison. His defence statement indicated that he had acted under pressure and in ignorance.
Held: The appeal failed. A charge under either section 40B(1)(a) or section 40C(1)(a) of the Prison Act 1952 was proved once it was established that the defendant knew he was carrying something prohibited into the prison. He did not need that he knew precisely what it was, but only it was a package containing prohibited material.

Judges:

Rafferty LJ, Morris J, McCreath Rec Westminster

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Crim 189, [2017] WLR(D) 170

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Prison Act 1952

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime, Prisons

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.580923

Stevenson, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: Admn 18 Mar 2015

Application for judicial review in relation to decisions of the Governor of Her Majesty’s Prison Wakefield and the Secretary of State for Justice that he remain incarcerated at Her Majesty’s Prison Wakefield. Permission to apply for judicial review has been granted on one sole ground, namely that the defendants’ decisions failed to pay proper regard to the claimant’s Article 8 rights.

Judges:

Jay J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 1014 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rigts 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.546878

Tymoshenko v Ukraine: ECHR 3 Jul 2012

[2012] ECHR 1200
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Citing:
See AlsoTymoshenko v Ukraine ECHR 31-May-2012
. .

Cited by:
See AlsoTymoshenko v Ukraine (Legal Summary) ECHR 30-Apr-2013
ECHR Article 5-1
Lawful arrest or detention
Pre-trial detention for allegedly contemptuous behaviour to trial court: violation
Article 18
Restrictions for unauthorised purposes
See AlsoTymoshenko v Ukraine ECHR 30-Apr-2013
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.571947

Hussain, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice: CA 15 Nov 2016

The claimant appealed against case management decision made in his claim relating to his treatment in prison. In pursuing his case for reclassification, he had requested his personal data from the prison but was dissatisfied with the responses.

Gross, Sales, Simon LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 1111, [2016] WLR(D) 605,
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Prisons, Litigation Practice, Information

Updated: 25 January 2022; Ref: scu.571422

Brooks, Regina (on The Application of) v The Independent Adjudicator and Another: CA 28 Oct 2016

Appeal by the Secretary of State from an order declaring that the detention of the claimant for a period of 11 days following the expiry of the custodial element of a sentence imposed upon him in the Crown Court was a breach of his rights protected by Article 5(1) of European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and was entitled to damages as just satisfaction for that breach.

Jackson McCombie LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 1033
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 5(1)
England and Wales

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570642

H, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: Admn 9 Sep 2008

The claimant challenged a decision by the defendant, that he should remain a Category A prisoner. He was serving a sentence of life imprisonment, his minimum term had expired and he was detained in a Protected Witness Unit. These factors, he contended, mean that the Secretary of State erred by failing to hold an oral hearing when determining his categorisation.
Held: There should have been an oral hearing in the particular circumstances of the claimant’s case.

Cranston J
[2008] EWHC 2590 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Prisons

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569942

M, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice: Admn 6 Oct 2016

The claimant, a serving prisoner at HMP Woodhill. challenged the refusal by the defendant, in a decision made by the Category A Review Team to grant an oral hearing of his annual review to consider whether or not to maintain his prisoner security category at A.

Stephen Davis HHJ
[2016] EWHC 2455 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Prisons

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569915

Vasilescu v Belgium (Legal Summary): ECHR 25 Nov 2014

ECHR Article 46
General measures
Article 46-2
Execution of judgment
Respondent State required to take general measures to improve conditions of detention and to afford appropriate remedies
Article 3
Degrading treatment
Inhuman treatment
Conditions of detention amounting to degrading and inhuman treatment: violation
Facts – The applicant complained before the European Court of the conditions in which he had been detained in various prisons in Belgium.
Law – Article 3: The applicant had been detained in overcrowded prison conditions and sometimes in cells with no toilet facilities or access to running water. He had also had to sleep on a mattress on the floor for several weeks and had been exposed to passive smoking. Accordingly, the applicant’s material conditions of detention in Antwerp and Merksplas prisons, taken as a whole, had reached the minimum threshold of seriousness required by Article 3 of the Convention and amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; claim in respect of pecuniary damage dismissed.
Article 46: The problems arising from prison overcrowding in Belgium, and the problems of unhygienic and dilapidated prisons, were structural in nature and did not concern the applicant’s personal situation alone. The conditions of detention about which the applicant had complained had been criticised by national and international observers for many years without any improvement apparently having been made in the prisons in which he had been detained. On the contrary, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) had observed in 2012 that the problem of prison overcrowding had continued to worsen in Belgium during recent years. Furthermore, none of the remedies referred to by the Government could at the present time be regarded as an effective remedy that had to be exhausted.
Accordingly, the Court recommended that the respondent State envisage adopting general measures in order to guarantee prisoners conditions of detention compatible with Article 3 of the Convention and also to provide them with a remedy capable of putting a stop to an alleged violation or permitting them to obtain an improvement in their conditions of detention.

64682/12 – Legal Summary, [2014] ECHR 1449
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Cited by:
Legal SummaryVasilescu v Belgium ECHR 25-Nov-2014
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569486

Tyrrell v HM Senior Coroner County Durham and Darlington and Another: Admn 26 Jul 2016

The court was aked what article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights requires of a coroner when a serving prisoner dies of natural causes.
Held: The reuest for judicial review failed. Mr Tyrrell’s death was, from the outset, one which was clearly from natural causes. The cause of death was established and then confirmed on post-mortem examination. There was no indication of state involvement in his death of the sort that would trigger the procedural obligation under article 2 ECHR. The coroner was right to conclude that the procedural obligation was not engaged.
The positive obligations under article 2 encompass a duty to account for the cause of any death which occurs in custody. The procedural obligation arises only in circumstances where the responsibility of the state is engaged in the sense that there is reason to believe that the substantive positive obligations have been breached by the state. In the case of deaths in custody the procedural obligation will be triggered in the case of all suspicious deaths, including apparent suicides.

Burnett LJ, Lang J
[2016] EWHC 1892 (Admin), CO/3068/2015
Bailii, Judiiary
European Convention on Human Rights 2, Coroners and Justice Act 2009 1(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v North Humberside and Scunthorpe Coroner ex parte Jamieson CA 27-Apr-1994
The deceased prisoner had hanged himself. He had been a known suicide risk, and his brother said that the authorities being so aware, the death resulted from their lack of care. The inquest heard in full the circumstannces leading up to the death, . .
CitedMiddleton, Regina (on the Application of) v Coroner for the Western District of Somerset HL 11-Mar-2004
The deceased had committed suicide in prison. His family felt that the risk should have been known to the prison authorities, and that they had failed to guard against that risk. The coroner had requested an explanatory note from the jury.
CitedOsman v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-Oct-1998
Police’s Complete Immunity was Too Wide
(Grand Chamber) A male teacher developed an obsession with a male pupil. He changed his name by deed poll to the pupil’s surname. He was required to teach at another school. The pupil’s family’s property was subjected to numerous acts of vandalism, . .
CitedJordan v United Kingdom; McKerr v United Kingdom; similar ECHR 4-May-2001
Proper Investigation of Deaths with Army or Police
Claims were made as regards deaths of alleged terrorists in clashes with the UK armed forces and police. In some cases the investigations necessary to justify the taking of life had been inadequate. Statements made to the inquiry as to the . .
CitedGentle, Regina (on the Application of) and Another v The Prime Minister and Another HL 9-Apr-2008
The appellants were mothers of two servicemen who had died whilst on active service in Iraq. They appealed refusal to grant a public inquiry. There had already been coroners inquests. They said that Article 2 had been infringed.
Held: The . .
CitedJL, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice; Regina (L (A Patient)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 26-Nov-2008
The prisoner was left with serious injury after attempting suicide in prison. He said that there was a human rights duty to hold an investigation into the circumstances leading up to this.
Held: There existed a similar duty to hold an enhanced . .
CitedSlimani v France ECHR 27-Jul-2004
A Tunisian was committed to a psychiatric hospital on several occasions. He died while detained in a detention centre awaiting deportation. The applicant complained that there had been a violation of article 2 on two grounds: the detention centre . .
CitedGoodson v HM Coroner for Bedfordshire and Luton Admn 17-Dec-2004
A patient had died in hospital following an operation. The NHS Trust submitted that ‘There is a real distinction between cases of medical negligence, which were specifically addressed as a discrete area in Calvelli, and cases of intentional killing . .
CitedTakoushis, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Coroner for Inner North London and others CA 30-Nov-2005
Relatives sought judicial review of the coroner’s decision not to allow a jury, and against allowance of an expert witness. The deceased had been a mental patient but had been arrested with a view to being hospitalised. He was taken first to the . .
CitedTarariyeva v Russia ECHR 14-Dec-2006
A complaint was made that the authorities had failed in their duty to protect a prisoner’s life. The authorities had him in custody for two years and knew of his health problems. He was not properly treated in the penal colony. When he had acute . .
CitedKats and Others v Ukraine ECHR 18-Dec-2008
The applicants were the parents and son of a prisoner who died in custody of an HIV related illness. They complained of her treatment in custody.
Held: If someone dies in custody an explanation of the cause of death must be provided, including . .
CitedDaniel and Another v St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust and Another QBD 19-Jan-2016
The claimants as PR’s of a deceased prisoner claimed under the 1998 Act as to his treatment whilst in prison.
Held: The Claimants failed to establish violations of Articles 2 or 3 and their claim against both Defendants was dismissed. . .
CitedSmith, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence and Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) SC 30-Jun-2010
The deceased soldier died of heat exhaustion whilst on active service in Iraq. It was said that he was owed a duty under human rights laws, and that any coroner’s inquest should be a fuller one to satisfy the state’s duty under Article 2.
Prisons, Human Rights, Coroners, News

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.567656

Roberts v Parole Board: HL 7 Jul 2005

Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society

The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: The appeal failed (by a majority). The court should focus on the need of the Parole Board to carry out its work balancing the rights of the prisoner and the needs of society.
Lord Carswell said: ‘The present case is a classic instance of weighing up competing interests. The appellant’s interest in presenting his case effectively with sufficient knowledge of the allegations made against him is clear and strong. The informant has a compelling interest in being protected from dangerous consequences which might ensue if any indication leaked out which could lead to his identification. Thirdly, there is the public interest in ensuring that the Parole Board has all proper material before it to enable it to decide which prisoners are safe to release from prison. Having balanced these interests, I conclude that the interests which I have outlined of the informant and the public must prevail over those of the appellant, strong though the latter may be. I emphasise, however, that my conclusions relating to the powers of the Parole Board to use the SAA procedure and their compatibility with article 5(4) are a decision in principle, for that was all that was before the House. We were not asked, nor were we in a position to decide, whether it was proper in the instant case of the appellant. I accept that there may well be cases in which it would not be sufficiently fair to be justifiable and each case will require consideration on its own facts.’
The withholding of material was a clear breach of accepted rules of natural justice. The special advocate procedure had severe shortcomings. The statute made no provision for the procedure adopted, and it was unlawful Lord Steyn: ‘it is a formalistic outcome to describe a phantom hearing involving a special advocate (as directed by the Board) as meeting minimum standards of fairness. In truth the special advocate procedure empties the prisoner’s fundamental right to an oral hearing of all meaningful content.’ (Lord Bngham and Lord Steyn dissenting).
Lord Bingham said, in relation to procedural unfairness: ‘The principles have been set out in many cases of high authority, with greater elegance, but I would summarise them as follows. (i) An administrative body is required to act fairly when reaching a decision which could adversely affect those who are the subject of the decision.(ii) This requirement of fairness is not fixed and its content depends upon all the circumstances and, in particular, the nature of the decision which the body is required to make.(iii) The obligation of fairness to which I refer can be confined by legislation and, in particular, by rules of procedure, provided that the language used makes its effect clear and, in the case of secondary legislation it does not contravene the provisions of the [ECHR] Convention . . ‘

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Woolf, Lord Steyn, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Carswell
[2005] UKHL 45, [2005] 2 AC 738, [2005] HRLR 38, [2005] UKHRR 939, [2006] 1 All ER 39, [2005] RPC 10, [2005] 3 WLR 152
Bailii, House of Lords
Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 28(5), European Convention on Human Rights 5
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromRoberts 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 . .
CitedRegina v Lichniak HL 25-Nov-2002
The appellants challenged the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment imposed on them on their convictions for murder. They said it was an infringement of their Human Rights, being arbitrary and disproportionate.
Held: The case followed on . .
CitedGirling v Parole Board and Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 8-Apr-2005
Once the punitive or tariff term of imprisonment on a convicted murderer, is completed, risk to life and limb provides the sole ground for continued detention. The Parole Board, being subject to directions from the Home Secretary, was not an . .
At First InstanceRoberts v Parole Board Admn 19-Dec-2003
The prisoner had been convicted in 1996 of the murder of three police officers. His tariff had been fixed at 30 years. Material was to be placed before the parole board which was not to be disclosed to the appellant or his legal advisers. Instead it . .
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 . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody and Others HL 25-Jun-1993
A mandatory lifer is to be permitted to suggest the period of actual sentence to be served. The Home Secretary must give reasons for refusing a lifer’s release. What fairness requires in any particular case is ‘essentially an intuitive judgment’, . .
CitedRegina v Parole Board ex parte Smith, Regina v Parole Board ex parte West (Conjoined Appeals) HL 27-Jan-2005
Each defendant challenged the way he had been treated on revocation of his parole licence, saying he should have been given the opportunity to make oral representations.
Held: The prisoners’ appeals were allowed.
Lord Bingham stated: . .
CitedRoberts v Parole Board Admn 19-Dec-2003
The prisoner had been convicted in 1996 of the murder of three police officers. His tariff had been fixed at 30 years. Material was to be placed before the parole board which was not to be disclosed to the appellant or his legal advisers. Instead it . .
CitedRegina v Parole Board, ex Parte Watson CA 11-Mar-1996
The test as to whether there was still a need to protect the public safety from the defendant was just as appropriate when considering the revocation of a licence, as it was when the need for continued detention was being reviewed before the grant . .
CitedRegina v A (Complainant’s Sexual History) (No 2) HL 17-May-2001
The fact of previous consensual sex between complainant and defendant could be relevant in a trial of rape, and a refusal to allow such evidence could amount to a denial of a fair trial to a defendant. Accordingly, where the evidence was so relevant . .
CitedRegina v H; Regina v C HL 5-Feb-2004
Use of Special Counsel as Last Resort Only
The accused faced charges of conspiring to supply Class A drugs. The prosecution had sought public interest immunity certificates. Special counsel had been appointed by the court to represent the defendants’ interests at the applications.
CitedDoorson v The Netherlands ECHR 26-Mar-1996
Evidence was given in criminal trials by anonymous witnesses and evidence was also read as a result of a witness having appeared at the trial but then absconded. The defendant was convicted of drug trafficking. As regards the anonymous witnesses, . .
CitedVan Mechelen And Others v The Netherlands ECHR 23-Apr-1997
A Dutch court had convicted the applicants of attempted manslaughter and robbery on the basis of statements made, before their trial, by anonymous police officers, none of whom gave evidence before the Regional Court or the investigating judge. The . .
CitedTinnelly and Sons Ltd and Others and McElduff and Others v United Kingdom ECHR 10-Jul-1998
Legislation which disallowed claimants who asserted that they had been discriminated against, on the grounds of their religious background, from appealing through the courts system, was a clear breach of their human rights. A limitation will not be . .
CitedJasper v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Feb-2000
Grand Chamber – The defendants had been convicted after the prosecution had withheld evidence from them and from the judge under public interest immunity certificates. They complained that they had not had fair trials.
Held: The right was . .
CitedIn Re K (Infants) CA 2-Jan-1963
The court discussed the need for those appearing before tribunals to be given sufficient access to all the material placed before the judge. Upjohn LJ said: ‘It seems to be fundamental to any judicial inquiry that a person or other properly . .
CitedRe D (Minors) (Adoption Reports: Confidentiality) HL 1-Sep-1995
The House considered whether it was right for a tribunal to see and rely upon papers not disclosed to the parties. Lord Mustill said: ‘a first principle of fairness that each party to a judicial process shall have an opportunity to answer by . .
CitedIn Re K (Infants); Official Solicitor v K HL 2-Jan-1963
The House considered the propriety of a tribunal chairman seeing material not placed before the parties. This was a wardship case.
Held: Where the interests of the parents and the child conflicted, ‘the welfare of the child must dominate’.
CitedRegina v Parole Board and Another ex parte Wilson CA 6-May-1992
It was natural justice to allow a discretionary lifer to see the reports which had been prepared for consideration on his application for release on licence. W had been sentenced to life imprisonment for buggery, and was a discretionary life . .
CitedLamy v Belgium ECHR 30-Mar-1989
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-4; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award – domestic proceedings; . .
CitedD (A Minor), Regina (on the Application of) v Camberwell Green Youth Court HL 27-Jan-2005
The defendant challenged the obligatory requirement that evidence given by a person under 17 in sex or violent offence cases must normally be given by video link.
Held: The purpose of the section was to improve the quality of the evidence . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department Ex Parte Hickey and Others, Same Ex Parte Bamber; Same Ex Parte Malone (No 2) QBD 29-Nov-1994
The Home Secretary is obliged to disclose new evidence to a defendant before rejecting his application for a reference to Court of Appeal. The Home Secretary’s powers to refer a case back to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) was an integral . .
CitedKostovski v The Netherlands ECHR 20-Nov-1989
No Anonymity for Witnessses in Criminal Trial
K was convicted of armed robbery on the basis of statements of anonymous witnesses. He was unable to question those witnesses at any stage. Being unaware of the identity of the witnesses deprived K of the very particulars which would have enabled . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte H and Others, Regina v Same ex parte Hickey CA 29-Jul-1994
A discretionary life prisoner who had been transferred to a mental hospital is not automatically eligible for a certificate under the section. The right conferred on a discretionary life prisoner by section 34 of the 1991 Act did not extend to those . .
CitedBrandstetter v Austria ECHR 28-Aug-1991
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-d; No violation of Art. 6-3-c; Pecuniary damage – claim . .
CitedEdwards v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Dec-1992
The fact that the elderly victim of the robbery of which the defendant had been convicted had failed to pick out Mr Edwards when she was shown two volumes of photographs of possible burglars which included his photograph was not disclosed to the . .
mentionedSanchez-Reisse v Switzerland ECHR 21-Oct-1986
That a detainee may be heard either in person or, where necessary, through some form of representation can be a fundamental procedural guarantee in matters of deprivation of liberty. Article 5(4)was inspired by the English law of habeas corpus. . .
MentionedAl-Nashif v Bulgaria ECHR 20-Jun-2002
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objections dismissed (non-exhaustion, abuse of right of petition); Violation of Art. 5-4; Violation of Art. 8; Violation of Art. 13; Not necessary to . .
MentionedLuca v Italy ECHR 27-Feb-2001
The accused had been convicted. After exercising his right to silence, there were read to the court accounts of statements made by co-accused but without an opportunity for him to cross examine the witnesses.
Held: Saunders had established the . .
CitedGarcia Alva v Germany ECHR 13-Feb-2001
The complainant had been arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking and was detained on remand. When he brought an application for review of his detention his lawyers were not given access to a number of documents in the file, including the . .
CitedThe Secretary of State for the Home Department v M CA 18-Mar-2004
The applicant had been detained under the appellant’s certificate that he was a suspected terrorist.
Held: The fact that there were suspicions surrounding the detainee did not mean that those suspicions were necessarily reasonable suspicions . .
CitedAttorney General and Another v Great Eastern Railway Company HL 27-May-1880
An Act of Parliament authorised a company to construct a railway. Two other companies combined and contracted with the first to supply rolling stock. An injunction was brought to try to restrain this, saying that such a contract was not explicitly . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Pierson HL 24-Jul-1997
The Home Secretary may not later extend the tariff for a lifer, after it had been set by an earlier Home Secretary, merely to satisfy needs of retribution and deterrence: ‘A power conferred by Parliament in general terms is not to be taken to . .
CitedChahal v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-1996
Proper Reply Opportunity Required on Deportation
(Grand Chamber) The claimant was an Indian citizen who had been granted indefinite leave to remain in this country but whose activities as a Sikh separatist brought him to the notice of the authorities both in India and here. The Home Secretary of . .
CitedColes v Odhams Press Ltd 1936
Lord Hewart CJ said that courts should avoid ‘taking blind shots at a hidden target’. . .
CitedBouamar v Belgium ECHR 29-Feb-1988
Hudoc Violation of Art. 5-1; Violation of Art. 5-4; Just satisfaction reserved; Judgment (Just satisfaction) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement)
A person detained as a juvenile in need of . .
CitedHussain v The United Kingdom ECHR 21-Feb-1996
The determination of a life sentence by the Home Secretary without recourse to a court was unlawful. There had been a violation of article 5(4) because the applicant who had been detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure was unable, after the expiry of his . .
CitedSecretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman HL 11-Oct-2001
The applicant, a Pakistani national had entered the UK to act as a Muslim priest. The Home Secretary was satisfied that he was associated with a Muslim terrorist organisation, and refused indefinite leave to remain. The Home Secretary provided both . .
CitedRegina v H; Regina v C HL 5-Feb-2004
Use of Special Counsel as Last Resort Only
The accused faced charges of conspiring to supply Class A drugs. The prosecution had sought public interest immunity certificates. Special counsel had been appointed by the court to represent the defendants’ interests at the applications.
MentionedRegina v Shayler HL 21-Mar-2002
The defendant had been a member of the security services. On becoming employed, and upon leaving, he had agreed to keep secret those matters disclosed to him. He had broken those agreements and was being prosecuted. He sought a decision that the . .
CitedWaite v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-Dec-2002
The claimant had been sentenced to be detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure when a youth. After release on licence, the Parole Board met and revoked that licence without an oral hearing, and in contravention of the rules. He did not dispute the facts . .
CitedRegina v Davis; Regina v Rowe; Regina v Johnson CA 10-Mar-1993
Guidance was given on the procedures to be followed for applications for non-disclosure for public interest immunity. The court identified three types of case. In the first, and most frequent case the prosecution must notify the defence of the . .
CitedRegina on the Application of S v Waltham Forest Youth Court, The Crown Prosecution Service, The Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 31-Mar-2004
There was no inherent power to allow a defendant to give evidence by live link, on the ground that Parliament had sought since 1988 to provide exclusively for the circumstances in which live link might be used in a criminal trial. . .
QuotedUnited States v Rabinowitz 1950
(US Supreme Court) Justice Frankfurter said: ‘It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.’ . .
CitedRegina v Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council, ex parte McCarthy and Stone (Developments) Ltd HL 14-Nov-1991
A Local Authority was not able to impose charge for inquiries as to speculative developments and similar proposals, or for consultations, and pre-planning advice. There was no statutory authority for such a charge, and it was therefore unlawful and . .
CitedHazell v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council HL 1991
Swap deals outwith Council powers
The authority entered into interest rate swap deals to protect itself against adverse money market movements. They began to lose substantial amounts when interest rates rose, and the district auditor sought a declaration that the contracts were . .

Cited by:
CitedMcClean, Re HL 7-Jul-2005
The appellant was serving a life sentence for terrorist offences. He complained that he should have been released under the 1998 Act. It was said he would be a danger to the public if released. On pre-release home leave he was involved in a . .
CitedAl-Jedda, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 12-Aug-2005
The claimant was born an Iraqi, but had been granted British Nationality. He was later detained in Iraq suspected of membership of a terrorist group. No charges were brought, and he complained that his article 5 rights were infringed. The defendant . .
CitedHenshall v General Medical Council and others CA 13-Dec-2005
The claimant had lodged a complaint against a medical practitioner. The preliminary proceedings committee had accepted evidence from the doctor, but had not given the complainant opportunity to see it and comment upon it.
Held: the rules must . .
CitedMB, Re, Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB Admn 12-Apr-2006
The applicant challenged the terms of a non-derogating control order. It was anticipated that unless prevented, he would fight against UK forces in Iraq.
Held: The section allowed the Secretary of State to impose any necessary conditions, but . .
CitedGardner, Regina (on the Application Of) v the Parole Board Admn 21-Dec-2005
The court considered whether a parole review board can exclude the prisoner from part of a hearing and if so on what grounds.
Held: The parole board had the required power. Both Rule 19 (2) and 19 (3) gave the panel the power which they . .
CitedGardner, Regina (on the Application of) v Parole Board CA 5-Sep-2006
The prisoner challenged his exclusion from a parole board hearing whilst evidence was taken. He was serving a long sentence for a violent attack, and had re-offended only shortly after his release. His ex-wife had been unwilling to confront him, and . .
CitedA, K, M, Q and G v HM Treasury Admn 24-Apr-2008
The applicants were suspected of terrorist associations. Their bank accounts and similar had been frozen. They challenged the Order in Council under which the orders had been made without an opportunity for parliamentary challenge or approval.
CitedMurungaru v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others Admn 4-Oct-2006
The claimant challenged the decision of the respondent that his continued presence in the UK would not be conducive to the public good. He had been given multiple entry visas which had been revoked.
Held: The refusal of entry interfered with . .
See AlsoRoberts, Regina (on the Application of) v The Parole Board Admn 7-Nov-2008
The prisoner was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of three police officers in 1966. He served a longer time than the recommended minimum and had been transferred to an open prison anticipating release on licence. He now complained of . .
CitedAl Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others QBD 18-Nov-2009
The claimants sought damages from the defendants saying that they had been held and ill treated at various detention centres by foreign authorities, but with the involvement of the defendants. The defendants sought to bring evidence before the court . .
CitedBank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury CA 4-May-2010
The claimants sought damages after being made subject of orders under the 2009 Order. Both parties appealed against an order (partly closed) allowing some but restricting other disclosure and use against the claimants in court of evidence which they . .
CitedAl Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others CA 4-May-2010
Each claimant had been captured and mistreated by the US government, and claimed the involvement in and responsibility for that mistreatment by the respondents. The court was asked whether a court in England and Wales, in the absence of statutory . .
CitedSher and Others v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police and Others Admn 21-Jul-2010
The claimants, Pakistani students in the UK on student visas, had been arrested and held by the defendants under the 2000 Act before being released 13 days later without charge. They were at first held incognito. They said that their arrest and . .
CitedChief Constable and Another v YK and Others FD 6-Oct-2010
cc_ykFD10
The court gave directions in Forced Marriage Protection order applications. An order had been made at the request of the police on behalf of A, and the court had declined to discharge it on A’s own application.
Held: Special advocates were not . .
CitedAl Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others SC 13-Jul-2011
The claimant pursued a civil claim for damages, alleging complicity of the respondent in his torture whilst in the custody of foreign powers. The respondent sought that certain materials be available to the court alone and not to the claimant or the . .
CitedMcGetrick, Regina (on The Application of) v Parole Board and Another CA 14-Mar-2013
The claimant prisoner appealed against refusal of review of the use of allegations and evidence of offences not tried against him when deciding as to his release on licence. The material would suggest that he might pose a continuing risk to . .
CitedBank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 1) SC 19-Jun-2013
Closed Material before Supreme Court
Under the 2009 order, the appellant Bank had been effectively shut down as to its operations within the UK. It sought to use the appeal procedure, and now objected to the use of closed material procedure. The Supreme Court asked itself whether it . .
CitedAustin, Regina (on The Application of) v Parole Board for England and Wales Admn 17-Jan-2022
Parole Board Publication Scheme Unduly Complicated
This claim for judicial review raises important issues about the lawfulness of the Parole Board’s policy and practice in relation to the provision of a summary of a Parole Board decision to victims and victims’ families and the media. The protocol . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Leading Case

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.228285

DSD and NBV and Others Regina (on The Application of) v: Admn 28 Mar 2018

Challenge to decision of parole board for release of notorious criminal. – Whether Parole Board should take account of allegations made but neither prosecuted nor admitted. Whether Parole Board hearings were public.
Held: Granted
Sir Brian Leveson, President of the Queen’s Bench Division, said: ‘There are no obvious reasons why the open justice principle should not apply to the Parole Board in the context of providing information on matters of public concern to the very group of individuals who harbour such concern, namely the public itself. Indeed, it seems to us that there are clear and obvious reasons why the Parole Board should do so. This information can readily be provided in a fashion which in no way undermines the article 8 rights of the prisoner and the confidentiality which attaches to it.
Our conclusion is that the open justice principle, or more particularly the right of the public to receive information which flows from the operation of that principle, applies to the proceedings of the Parole Board.’

Sir Brian Leveson P QBD, Jay, Garnham JJ
[2018] EWHC 694 (Admin), [2018] WLR(D) 195, [2018] 3 All ER 417, [2018] 3 WLR 829, [2018] HRLR 12, [2019] QB 285, [2018] ACD 57
Bailii, WLRD
Parole Board Rules 2016 25
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedMonica, Regina (on The Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 14-Dec-2018
Deception as to identity did not undermine consent
The claimant had been an environmental campaigner. She had had a sexual relationship with a man who was unknown to her an undercover police officer. She now challenged the decision not to prosecute him for rape.
Held: Her claim failed. Case . .
CitedAustin, Regina (on The Application of) v Parole Board for England and Wales Admn 17-Jan-2022
Parole Board Publication Scheme Unduly Complicated
This claim for judicial review raises important issues about the lawfulness of the Parole Board’s policy and practice in relation to the provision of a summary of a Parole Board decision to victims and victims’ families and the media. The protocol . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.608925