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 which led to his recall. However, he submitted that issues arose concerning his character and mental state which rendered an oral hearing essential to the fairness of the proceedings.
Held: The effect of compliance with article 5.4 by the adoption of ppropriate procedures did not extend beyond the consequences of the first court decision. Where new issues arose affecting the lawfulness of a detention, such as after the expiry of the initial tariff period, the article 5.4 rights were revived. In this case they had been breached. There was no breach of article 5.1 rights because the applicant had given good cause for his recall. References to his relationship with another male whilst under the age of 18 had not affected the decision to recall, and he had not been discriminated against for his sexual orientation.
‘The court is not persuaded by the Government’s argument which appears to be based on the speculative assumption that whatever might have occurred at an oral hearing the Board would not have exercised its power to release. Article 5(4) is first and foremost a guarantee of a fair procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of detention – an applicant is not required, as a precondition to enjoying that protection, to show that on the facts of his case he stands any particular chance of success of obtaining his release. In matters of such crucial importance as deprivation of liberty and where questions arise involving, for example, an assessment of the applicant’s character or mental state, the Court’s case-law indicates that it may be essential to the fairness of the proceedings that the applicant be present at an oral hearing. In such a case as the present, where characteristics pertaining to the applicant’s personality and level of maturity and reliability are of importance in deciding on his dangerousness, Article 5(4) requires an oral hearing in the context of an adversarial procedure involving legal representation and the possibility of calling and questioning witnesses . . ‘
(2002) 36 EHRR 1001, Times 31-Dec-2002, 53236/99, [2002] ECHR 798, [2002] ECHR 804, [2003] Prison LR 160, (2003) 36 EHRR 54,
Worldlii, Bailii
Human Rights
Citing:
Cited – Wynne v United Kingdom ECHR 18-Jul-1994
A Discretionary lifer is not entitled to a review by a court of his continued detention. His article five rights were not breached. Where a national court imposed a fixed sentence of imprisonment, the supervision required by article 5.4 was . .
Cited – Weeks v The United Kingdom ECHR 5-Oct-1988
The Court was asked as to the recall to prison of a prisoner who had been released on licence. His recall and subsequent detention were considered by the Board, but under the system then in place it could only make a non-binding recommendation. . .
Cited by:
Cited – 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: . .
Cited – Hirst v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 6-Jul-2006
The prisoner had been released on licence but then recalled. He complained that the procedure infringed his human rights. He had been convicted of manslaughter, and was seen to be a long term danger. The court awarded him compensation saying that . .
Cited – Osborn 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 . .
Cited – Osborn and Another v The Parole Board CA 15-Dec-2010
The three claimants complained that the respondent had made decisions adverse to them as to their release to or recall from parole.
Held: Review was refused. While there was ‘some force in the submission that, contrary to the understanding of . .
Cited – Osborn v The Parole Board Admn 19-Mar-2010
The claimants complained that decisions had been made by the respondents without them having been first given a right to an oral hearing. They now sought permission to bring judicial review.
Held: Permission was refused. The facts in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Prisons, Criminal Sentencing
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.178372