Grey v UK 34377/02 (2002) ECHR 854: Difference between revisions

m (Text replacement - "\[http:\/\/www\.bailii\.org\/.*\/cases\/(UKSC|ECHR|UKPC|EWCOP|EWFC|UKHL|PBRA)\/(.*)\/(.*)\.html Bailii\]" to "{{#bailii:[$2] $1 $3}}")
 
Line 10: Line 10:




[[Category:Absolute or conditional discharge]]
[[Category:Absolute or conditional discharge cases]]
[[Category:ECHR]]
[[Category:ECHR]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2002 cases]]
[[Category:2002 cases]]

Latest revision as of 21:01, 2 May 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

BAILII