Grey v UK 34377/02 (2002) ECHR 854: Difference between revisions
m (Text replacement - "{{stub}} " to "") |
m (Text replacement - "\[http:\/\/www\.bailii\.org\/.*\/cases\/(UKSC|ECHR|UKPC|EWCOP|EWFC|UKHL|PBRA)\/(.*)\/(.*)\.html Bailii\]" to "{{#bailii:[$2] $1 $3}}") |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
==External link== | ==External link== | ||
[ | {{#bailii:[2002] ECHR 854}} | ||
Revision as of 11:15, 25 April 2021
A Tribunal granted an absolute discharge because the claimant suffered from no mental disorder, but on judicial review this was quashed because they had not first considered conditional discharge; a subsequent Tribunal reclassified him and upheld continued detention; his complaint under Article 5(1)(e) was rejected (no duty immediately and unconditionally to release into the community), as were complaints under Article 5(4) (no undue delay) and Article 6 (no right to appeal).
Related judgments
Grey v UK 34377/02 [2002] ECHR 854
External link
The following categories (in blue boxes) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: