View source for 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 findings or concessions of Art 5(4) breaches were remitted to Admin court for assessment of damages.''

==ICLR==
{{ICLR|R (James) v SSJ (2009) UKHL 22}}

==Notes==
The IPP sentence scheme was introduced on 4/4/05 by s225 [[Criminal Justice Act 2003]]. The later amendments mentioned above took effect from 14/7/08 by s13 [[Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008]].

See [[Prison law]] for links between prison law and mental health law.

==External link==
{{#bailii:[2009] UKHL 22}}

[http://www.lawreports.co.uk/WLRD/2009/HLPC/May0.1.html  ICLR case report]

[http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldjudgmt/jd090506/james-1.htm Judgment on Parliament website]


[[Category:Prison law cases]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2009 cases]]