The prisoners challenged their continued detention. They had been sentenced and had served their tariff terms but had been continued to be detained for public protection, but with no current or effective assessment of what risk was posed.
Held: Such continued detention was unlawful.
Laws LJ described ‘further detention’ after the expiry of the tariff period as: ‘not at all justified by or at the time of sentence, for the very reason that the extent to which, or the time for which, the prisoner will remain a danger is unknown at the time of sentence … The justification for detention during the tariff period is of course spent; it is spent the moment the tariff expires.’
Laws LJ, Mitting J
 EWHC 1835 (QB),  EWHC 1835 (Admin), Times 11-Oct-2007,  1 All ER 138,  ACD 86
England and Wales
At Divisional Court – Secretary of State for Justice v James HL 6-May-2009
The applicant had been sentenced to an indefinite term for public protection, but the determinate part of his sentence had passed with no consideration as to whether his continued detention was required.
Held: The post tariff detention was not . .
Appeal From – Secretary of State for Justice v Walker; Same v James CA 1-Feb-2008
The claimant had been sentenced to a short period of imprisonment but with an indeterminate term until he demonstrated that it was no longer necessary for the protection of the public. He complained that the term having expired, no opportunity had . .
Cited – Martin Corey, Re for Judicial Review SC 4-Dec-2013
The appellant challenged his recall to prison from licence. He had been convicted in 1973 of the murder of two police officers. He had remained at liberty for 18 years, befire his licence was revoked on the basis of confidential iintelligence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.258491