2009
|
|
Cases Reported |
| Uttley v UK | 1 |
| Issue: Whether the application of the licence system under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to an offence committed before its enactment breached Art 7 ECHR. | |
| Shelley v UK | 5 |
| Issue: Whether the failure to provide a needle exchange programme in prison breached Arts 2, 3, 8 or 14 ECHR | |
| R (Robson) v Parole Board and Others | 13 |
| Issue: Whether there had been a breach of Art 5 ECHR in relation to arrangements made for a life sentence prisoner whose status had changed from a mandatory lifer whose tariff had not expired to a discretionary lifer whose tariff had expired. | |
| R (Noone) v Governor HMP Drake Hall and Secretary of State for Justice | 20 |
| Issue: The correct method of calculating eligibility for release on Home Detention Curfew when consecutive sentences were imposed; the rationality of the policy adopted by the Secretary of State. | |
| R (Noone) v Governor HMP Drake Hall and Secretary of State for Justice | 26 |
| Issue: The correct method of calculating eligibility for release on Home Detention Curfew when consecutive sentences were imposed; the rationality of the policy adopted by the Secretary of State. | |
| R (Alvey) v Parole Board | 35 |
| Issue: Whether a refusal to release on parole was lawful in light of the support given to it by those who produced reports for the Parole Board. | |
| R (Edwards-Sayer) v Home Secretary | 42 |
| Issue: The lawfulness of treating a prisoner as a convicted prisoner before sentence but after conviction; whether “convicted” meant found guilty or found guilty and also sentenced. | |
| Ladent v Poland | 47 |
| Issue: Whether detention for allegedly not responding to a criminal summons breached Art 5 ECHR for various reasons, including the proportionality of detention, the lack of an automatic review after arrest, the failure to provide translated reasons and the delay between a court order of release and the actual release. | |
| R (Brownhill) v Secretary of State for Justice | 59 |
| Issue: Whether the continued placement of a prisoner in category A conditions was irrational in light of difficulties in accessing the necessary courses to allow progress to lower security. | |
| R (Black) v Home Secretary | 63 |
| Issue: Whether Art 5(4) ECHR applied to the release on parole of a very long-term determinate sentence prisoner | |
| Dunn v Parole Board | 67 |
| Issue: Whether the limitation period applicable to a claim under the Human Rights Act 1998 based on a delay in the Parole Board considering the case of a recalled prisoner should be extended; whether a claim for false imprisonment should be allowed to proceed. | |
| R (Massey) v Parole Board and Secretary of State for Justice | 80 |
| Issue: Whether the delays in holding a Parole Board hearing for a recalled life prisoner breached Art 5(4) ECHR or were unreasonable. | |
| R (Botmeh and Alami) v Parole Board | 83 |
| Issue: Whether decisions not to recommend release on parole were irrational because the Board had reached erroneous conclusions as to the motivation for an offence; whether the Board acted unfairly by not raising the point in the hearing before it. | |
| R (Shaheen) v Secretary of State for Justice | 91 |
| Issue: Whether it was reasonable and proportionate to refuse to consent to the repatriation of a UK citizen to the Netherlands, where he resided, under the Convention on the Transfer of Prisoners. | |
| R (RD) v Home Secretary | 99 |
| Issue: Whether the charging regime for public phones in prison breached Arts 8 and/or 14 ECHR. | |
| R (Atkinson) v Parole Board | 103 |
| Issue: Whether the refusal to parole involved the proper balancing exercise or was rational. | |
| R (Faizovas) v Secretary of State for Justice | 107 |
| Issue: Whether the use of handcuffs and/or an escort chain during transport to and treatment in hospital breached Arts 3 and/or Art 8 ECHR; the adequacy of the assessment as to use of restraints. | |
| R (Chester) v Parole Board and Secretary of State for Justice | 114 |
| Issue: Whether decisions as to the release, transfer or recategorisation of a post-tariff life sentence prisoner were lawful. | |
| R (O’Neil) v Independent Adjudicator | 119 |
| Issue: Whether an adjudication conviction was wrong in law in light of the failure to produce an unauthorised article allegedly found in a cell search and the quashing of a finding against the other prisoner in the cell. | |
| R (Mitchell) v Home Secretary | 122 |
| Issue: Whether a decision not to place a life sentence prisoner in open conditions despite a Parole Board recommendation was lawful. | |
| R (K, AM, HM and LM) v Home Secretary and Kalyx Ltd | 126 |
| Issue: Whether a public inquiry was necessary to satisfy the investigative obligation arising under Art 3 ECHR in relation to alleged mistreatment in a detention centre. | |
| R (AM & Others) v Home Secretary and Kalyx Ltd, Bail for Immigration Detainees as Intervenor | 133 |
| Issue: Whether a public inquiry was necessary to satisfy the investigative obligation arising under Art 3 ECHR in relation to alleged mistreatment in a detention centre. | |
| R (P) v Secretary of State for Justice | 151 |
| Issue: Whether it was necessary to have an inquiry into the self-harming behaviour of a personality-disordered prisoner who was not transferred to a psychiatric hospital for some time. | |
| R (Primrose) v Secretary of State for Justice | 165 |
| Issue: Whether the failure to allow Home Detention Curfew release to Scotland breached Art 14 ECHR or the Race Relations Act 1976 | |
| R (Lashley) v An Independent Adjudicator and the Secretary of State for Justice | 175 |
| Issue: Whether a conviction at an adjudication should be quashed. | |
| Mason v Ministry of Justice | 177 |
| Issue: Whether delay in release on Home Detention Curfew gave rise to a right to seek damages for breach of Art 5(4) ECHR. | |
| R (Motylski) v Home Secretary | 186 |
| Issue: Whether a decision to revoke a life licence was lawful. | |
| R (Iddenden) v Parole Board and National Offender Management Service | 195 |
| Issue: Whether the non-release of a prisoner sentenced to imprisonment for public protection on the basis of the risk of similar offences was reasonable; the proper approach to the question of risk. | |
| R (Lowe) v Governor HMP Liverpool | 197 |
| Issue: Whether a decision to reverse the downward security categorisation of a prisoner was lawful. | |
| R (H) v Secretary of State for Justice | 205 |
| Issue: Whether consideration of continued placement in category A conditions required an oral hearing; the impact of training needs and whether they had not been taken into account. | |
| R (Loch) v Secretary of State for Justice | 212 |
| Issue: Whether an 18-month interval between Parole Board reviews for a life-sentence prisoner breached Art 5(4) ECHR. | |
| R (Hopkins) v Parole Board | 223 |
| Issue: Whether the decision not to release a determinate sentence prisoner on parole was lawful, including whether adequate reasons had been given; whether an oral hearing should have been held. | |
| R (Bates) v Parole Board | 234 |
| Issue: Whether a decision not to recommend the transfer of a life-sentence prisoner to open conditions was lawful; whether there was apparent bias. | |
| R (Haase) v Independent Adjudicator and Secretary of State for Justice | 241 |
| Issue: Whether the lack of an independent prosecuting service for disciplinary adjudications breached Art 6 ECHR. | |
| R (Ashford) v Secretary of State for Justice | 248 |
| Issue: Whether a refusal to bring forward a hearing of a Parole Board review of a life sentence prisoner, leaving a period between oral hearings of 22 months, breached Art 5(4) ECHR. | |
| R (AA) v Governor, HMP Downview and Secretary of State for Justice | 254 |
| Issue: Whether the policy relating to release on temporary licence was lawful; whether a decision that there were no exceptional circumstances to take the case outside the policy’s prohibition on considering ROTL when there was a term to serve in default of a confiscation order was lawful; whether formal declaratory relief should be granted. | |
| R (Lynch) v Secretary of State for Justice | 265 |
| Issue: Whether decisions not to categorise a prisoner from category A to category B were rational; the lawfulness of the failure to provide courses designed to reduce risk. | |
| R (Roberts) v Parole Board | 289 |
| Issue: Whether a decision not to release a life-sentence prisoner following open and closed hearings was fair and/or breached Art 5(4) ECHR; whether a decision not to recommend transfer to open condition breached Art 5(4) and/or was fair. | |
| R (Bayliss) v Parole Board and Secretary of State for Justice | 308 |
| Issue: Whether a decision not to release a prisoner imprisoned for public protection was lawful; the appropriate test to apply to release; the relevance of not having an up-to-date risk assessment. | |
| R (Bayliss) v Parole Board and Secretary of State for Justice | 315 |
| Issue: Whether a decision not to release a prisoner imprisoned for public protection was lawful; the appropriate test to apply to release; the relevance of not having an up-to-date risk assessment. | |
| R (Flinders) v Secretary of State for Justice | 321 |
| Issue: Whether the failure to provide offending behaviour courses and/or assessments of dangerousness was unfair or in breach of Art 5(4) ECHR; whether the failures amounted to discrimination on the basis of disability. | |
| R (Downing) v Parole Board | 327 |
| Issue: Whether there had been a breach of Art 5(4) ECHR in light of delays in a Parole Board hearing for a post-tariff lifer; whether damages were necessary to afford just satisfaction; the factors relevant to an award of damages. | |
| R (Smith) v Secretary of State for Justice and Parole Board | 333 |
| Issue: Whether delays in a Parole Board hearing for a short-tariff indeterminate sentence prisoner and in the arrangements made for offending-behaviour work breached Art 5(4) ECHR. | |
| R (Lee and Wells) v Secretary of State for Justice | 340 |
| Issue: Whether the ongoing detention of post-tariff indeterminate sentence prisoners who had not been offered offending-behaviour courses breached Art 5(1) and/or Art 5(4) ECHR. | |
| R (Harlow) v Parole Board | 347 |
| Issue: Whether a decision to refuse release on life licence was unlawful, the Board having referred to the absence of evidence of reduced risk rather than the existence of risk. | |
| R v Kehoe | 350 |
| Issue: Whether the proper sentence for an offence of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility was life imprisonment or imprisonment for public protection; the appropriate minimum term. | |
| R v C and Others | 353 |
| Issue: The changes to the regime for sentencing dangerous offenders. | |
| R (James, Lee and Wells) v Secretary of State for Justice | 371 |
| Issue: Whether a failure to provide offending behaviour work to prisoners detained for public protection meant that detention was unlawful at common law or under Art 5(1) ECHR; the role of Art 5(4) and whether it was breached. | |
| R (Black) v Home Secretary | 395 |
| Issue: Whether Art 5(4) ECHR applied to the release on parole of a very long-term determinate sentence prisoner. | |
| Ciorap v Moldova | 414 |
| Issue: Whether conditions of detention breached Art 3 ECHR; whether force-feeding breached Art 3 and whether it amounted to torture; whether a failure to waive court fees and allow an appeal to proceed breached Art 6; whether censorship and visiting conditions breached Art 8. | |
View as
Sort by
Display
per page
