Category

Prison law cases

See Prison law for background information.

The pages below are initially ordered according to the dates on which they were added to the site (most recent first). The order can be changed by clicking on the symbol beside a column heading: click on the symbol beside "Page and summary" for alphabetical order; click beside "Categories" for the order in which the cases were reported. Click on the arrow symbol again to reverse the order. Click on a page name to view the relevant page.
Page and summaryDate added to siteCategories
LV v UK 50718/16 [2018] MHLO 22 — "Complaint: The applicant complains under Article 5(4) of the Convention that she did not have a speedy review of the legality of her detention. In particular, she contends that her right to a speedy review was violated both by delays on the part of the Public Protection Casework Section and the Parole Board, and from the unnecessary two-stage Tribunal/Parole Board process. Question to the Parties: Was the review of the applicant’s detention which commenced on 24 May 2011 and concluded on 21 March 2013 conducted 'speedily' within the meaning of Article 5(4) of the Convention?" (The first paragraph of the decision is wrong as the applicant's solicitor works for Campbell Law Solicitors.) 2018-04-212018 cases, Deprivation of liberty, ECHR, No summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
R (Gourlay) v Parole Board [2017] EWCA Civ 1003 — "Does the established practice of the High Court, to make no order for costs for or against an inferior tribunal or court which plays no active part in a judicial review of one of its decisions, extend to the [Parole] Board?" 2018-02-132017 cases, ICLR summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
R v Vowles; R (Vowles) v SSJ [2015] EWCA Crim 45, [2015] EWCA Civ 56, [2015] MHLO 16 — "There are before the court: (1) Sitting as the Court of Appeal Criminal Division six cases where indeterminate sentences (either imprisonment for public protection (IPP) or a life sentence) had been passed between 1997 and 2008. Each specified a minimum term. In each case there was psychiatric evidence before the court with a view to a judge considering making a hospital order under MHA 1983 s37 as amended with a restriction under s41 of the same Act. The sentencing judge did not make such an order, but each was subsequently transferred to hospital under a transfer direction made by the Secretary of State under s47. (2) Sitting as the Court of Appeal Civil Division, a civil appeal in relation to a judicial review brought by the first of the appellants in the criminal appeals of the actions of the Secretary of State for Justice and the Parole Board relating to delay in the determination of her application for release from custody." In relation to the criminal aspect: in ..→2015-02-122015 cases, Deprivation of liberty, ICLR summary, MHLR summary, Prison law cases, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
R (Faulkner) v SSJ [2013] UKSC 23, [2013] MHLO 60 — Quantum of compensation for delayed Parole Board hearing. [Summary required; detailed external summary available.] 2013-08-082013 cases, Detailed summary, ICLR summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
R (Francis) v West Midlands Probation Board [2010] EWCA Civ 955 — Permission to appeal in relation to two issues granted: (1) 'The first concerns the relationship between the Parole Board, the Probation Service acting through one or more of its regional boards, MAPPA, and the prisoner who is serving a life sentence, when it comes to considering his life after release'; (2) 'The second issue concerns the rights of the appellant and Ms Kemp under Article 8'. [Summary required.] 2011-08-092010 cases, Missing from Bailii, No summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
R (Sturnham) v SSJ [2011] EWHC 938 (Admin) — Damages of £300 were awarded under Article 5 for anxiety and distress caused by six-month delay in Parole Board hearing. 2011-04-302011 cases, Brief summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
R (Faulkner) v SSJ [2011] EWCA Civ 349 — The claimant's Parole Board hearing should have been in March 2008 but was delayed in breach of Article 5(4) until January 2009 when he was released; he had shown on balance that he would have been released in March 2008. Having considered the case law on quantum, the court concluded that: 'a figure of £10,000 is appropriate and necessary to reflect the loss of some 10 months' conditional liberty by reason of the state's breach of the claimant's right not to continue to be detained in the absence of a speedy decision by a judicial body. We have not arrived at it by applying a multiplier to a monthly sum, although it can no doubt be disaggregated in that way.' 2011-03-302011 cases, Brief summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
R (Guntrip) v SSJ [2010] EWHC 3188 (Admin) — Parole Board Article 5(4) delay case. [Summary required.] 2011-01-232010 cases, No summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
R (Faulkner) v SSJ [2010] EWCA Civ 1434 — Delay in Parole Board hearing led to Article 5(4) breach. [Summary required.] 2010-12-162010 cases, No summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
R (Bary) v SSJ [2010] EWHC 587 (Admin) — The living and working regime for the inmates of the Detainee Unit at HMP Long Lartin (who are being held indefinitely pending extradition or deportation) was changed so that they were confined to the Unit, because of concerns that a new inmate might radicalise Muslims or plan/incite terrorism if allowed access to the main prison. The decision was challenged on the grounds that (1) it was irrational, unreasonable, disproportionate or made for illegitimate aims; (2) in breach of Article 3, it caused inhuman or degrading treatment for the two inmates with pre-existing mental illnesses; (3) in breach of Article 8, it unjustifiably removed them all from normal association and was an unjustifiable infringement of their right to the preservation of their mental stability in the broadest sense. The claim failed on all grounds. 2010-07-172010 cases, Brief summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
R (Noone) v HMP Drake Hall [2010] UKSC 30 — In calculating release dates, the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 apply to sentences of under 12 months provided that these are not imposed concurrently or consecutively with sentences of 12 months or over, and the CJA 2003 apply to sentences of under 12 months that are imposed concurrently or consecutively with sentences of 12 months or over. 2010-07-092010 cases, Detailed summary, ICLR summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
R (Gill) v SSJ [2010] EWHC 364 (Admin) — The Defendant's failure to offer the Claimant, who was a short-tariff lifer with learning disability, sufficient suitable offending behaviour work to give him the opportunity to demonstrate safety for release, unlawfully breached the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and breached his public law duties. 2010-03-022010 cases, Brief summary, Disability discrimination, Prison law cases, Transcript
R (Johnson) v SSJ [2009] EWHC 3336 (Admin) — The Secretary of State's decision that the next Parole Board review would occur 14-15 months after the last review was unsupported by any reason and, on the facts, inconsistent with Article 5(4). 2009-12-232009 cases, Brief summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
R (S) v SSHD and Parole Board [2002] EWHC 2424 (Admin) — Licence recall while on s3. [Summary required.] 2009-10-312002 cases, No summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
R (D) v SSHD [2002] EWHC 2805 (Admin) — Parole Board and Mental Health Tribunal. [Summary required.] 2009-10-312002 cases, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Prison law cases, Transcript
R (AB) v SSJ [2009] EWHC 2220 (Admin) — Continued detention of pre-operative male-to-female transsexual in male prison breached Article 8 and was Wednesbury unreasonable. 2009-10-092009 cases, Brief summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
R (Pennington) v Parole Board [2009] EWHC 2296 (Admin) — Delays by the Parole Board, both in issuing ICM directions (which caused a 2-month delay in listing the hearing) and in communicating the decision a month late, breached Article 5(4). Claims for "pure delay" - that is where a Parole Board hearing has been delayed because of a lack of resources available to or errors or omissions on the part of the Parole Board - survive the House of Lords decsion in James. Damages to be assessed at a later date. 2009-09-272009 cases, Brief summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
R (Faulkner) v SSJ [2009] EWHC 1507 (Admin) — 13 months after referral, the claimant was released by the Parole Board and subsequently absconded. (1) The question of whether to dismiss the claim purely on the grounds that the claimant was a fugitive was left open. (2) The Article 5(4) claim was inconsistent with R (James) v SSJ [2009] UKHL 22: there was no Article 5(4) breach as the system had not broken down entirely (by the PB being denied the information that it needed for such a long period as to make continued detention arbitrary). (3) If that analysis is wrong, there still was no breach as, looking at the totality of the matter, there had been a review within a reasonable period. (4) Even if there had been a breach, it could not be shown that the claimant would have been released earlier. (5) Damages, if appropriate, would have been in the region of £1,000-£2,000, or perhaps £4,000; but, seeing as he had absconded, no damages would have been awarded. [Caution.] 2009-07-202009 cases, Brief summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
R (Betteridge) v Parole Board [2009] EWHC 1638 (Admin) — (1) Article 5(4) requires a speedy hearing to determine the lawfulness of detention, independently of any consideration of arbitrariness under Article 5(1). (2) The delay in listing the claimant's Parole Board hearing, due to a lack of panel members, breached his Article 5(4) right to a speedy hearing; however, as there had been no chance of release, there was no claim in damages. (3) The steps being taken to fix the systemic failures, and the ongoing problems, mean that further Article 5(4) delay claims are not appropriate unless in very special circumstances. 2009-07-072009 cases, Detailed summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
R (Mehmet) v SSJ [2009] EWHC 1202 (Admin) — The failure, without good cause, to provide to the Parole Board for nearly a year a report on how the Claimant’s performance on the ABLB course impacts on the assessment of risk in his case (SARN report) was a breach of the Secretary of State’s public law obligations and accordingly unlawful. 2009-06-032009 cases, Brief summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
R (James) v SSJ [2009] UKHL 22 — (1) Following the introduction of IPP sentences, the Secretary of State was in breach of his public law duty to make reasonable provision to enable IPP prisoners (if necessary by completing treatment courses) to demonstrate to the Parole Board their safety for release. The appropriate remedy was declaratory relief condemning the Secretary of State's failures and indicating that he is obliged to do more. The systemic failure has ended (following amendments including making the IPP sentence generally available only when the notional minimum term is at least 2 years) so no further relief is appropriate. (2) In relation to post-tariff detention, the systemic failure did not: (a) make the detention unlawful (detention remains lawful under statute until Parole Board release); (b) breach Article 5(1) (causal link with objective of detention remained until Parole Board decision); or (c) breach Article 5(4) (which is concerned with procedure not substance) although cases with prior ..→2009-05-062009 cases, Brief summary, ICLR summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
R (Cooper) v Parole Board [2007] EWHC 1292 (Admin) — Target time of 55 days from referral to hearing in recall cases breached Article 5(4); as did the refusal to expedite case on on basis of prisoner's mental state. 2009-04-122007 cases, Brief summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
R (Johnson) v SSHD [2007] EWCA Civ 427 — Parole Board delay breached Article 5(4). 2009-04-122007 cases, No summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
R (Black) v SSJ [2009] UKHL 1 — The decision on whether to release a determinate sentence prisoner at his parole eligibility date (the half-way point of a long-term Criminal Justice Act 1991 prisoner) did not engage Article 5 as the decision was merely the administrative implementation of the sentence of the court. 2009-01-282009 cases, Detailed summary, ICLR summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
R (Brooke) v Parole Board [2008] EWCA Civ 29 — The Parole Board did not have the independence from the executive that was required for its judicial role in determining whether convicted prisoners should be released on licence. 2008-09-212008 cases, Detailed summary, ICLR summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
R (Evans) v Brockhill Prison [2000] UKHL 48 — False imprisonment. 2008-09-122000 cases, No summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
R (Evans) v Brockhill Prison [1998] EWCA Civ 1042 — False imprisonment. 2008-09-121998 cases, No summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
R (Evans) v Brockhill Prison [1997] EWHC Admin 544 — False imprisonment. 2008-09-121997 cases, No summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
R (Evans) v Brockhill Prison [1996] EWHC Admin 234 — False imprisonment. 2008-09-121996 cases, Missing from Bailii, No summary, No transcript, Prison law cases
R (Page) v Secretary of State for Justice [2007] EWHC 2026 (Admin) — Prison law case. 2008-09-122007 cases, No summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
R (Cawley) v Parole Board [2007] EWHC 2649 (Admin) — The portion of the delay in arranging a hearing which was attributable to the shortage of Parole Board members, a shortage not peculiar to this case, was unjustified under Article 5(4), but no order for damages would be made; the majority of the delay was the claimant's own fault. 2008-02-222007 cases, Brief summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
R (Brooke) v Parole Board [2007] EWHC 2036 (Admin) — The Parole Board lacks independence for the purposes of Article 5(4) ECHR because of the sponsorship relationship with the Ministry of Justice which is a party to its proceedings. 2007-09-162007 cases, Detailed summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
R (Miah) v SSHD [2004] EWHC 2569 (Admin) — Criminal sentence continues after s47 (notional s37) transfer, and after discharge from section; as does any licence period and power to recall for breach. 2007-09-132004 cases, Detailed summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
R (P) v SSHD [2003] EWHC 2953 (Admin) — The ECHR does not require joint MHRT/Parole Board hearings; the need for consecutive hearings does not breach Article 5(4). 2007-01-282003 cases, Detailed summary, Prison law cases, Transcript

Article titles

The following 34 pages are in this category.

R