2000
|
|
Cases Reported |
| R v Parole Board ex p Knightley | 1 |
| Issue: Whether a decision to refuse a prisoner parole was rational. | |
| R v Parole Board ex p Knightley | 3 |
| Issue: Whether a decision to refuse a prisoner parole was rational. | |
| R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Draper | 5 |
| Issue: Whether fairness requires the Secretary of State to issue a “minded to refuse” letter and invite representations before he declines to follow the recommendation of the Parole Board that a mandatory life sentence prisoner move to open conditions. | |
| R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p A | 13 |
| Issue: Whether time spent on remand in non-secure local authority accommodation was be deducted from a custodial sentence in calculating the release date. | |
| R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Ogden | 20 |
| Issue: The adequacy of a gist in a category A review. | |
| R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Shaw | 26 |
| Issue: The procedural requirements in a decision to exclude a prisoner from a treatment programme on the basis of a change in policy as to eligibility for the programme. | |
| R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Shaw | 32 |
| Issue: The procedural requirements in a decision to exclude a prisoner from a treatment programme on the basis of a change in policy as to the eligibility for the programme; whether permission to appeal should be granted. | |
| R v Governor, HMP Whatton and Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Willis | 34 |
| Issue: The lawfulness of the restrictive policy for the release on Home Detention Curfew of Sex Offenders; the procedures to be followed in the decision-making process. | |
| R v Parole Board ex p Blake | 38 |
| Issue: Whether a decision to refuse parole was irrational. | |
| R v Parole Board and Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Oyston | 45 |
| Issue: Whether the Parole Board had carried out an appropriate balancing act in determining not to release a prisoner on parole; the adequacy of its reasons. | |
| R v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Governor HMP Whatton ex p Allen | 52 |
| Issue: The procedural requirements in relation to the process of release on Home Detention Curfew. | |
| R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Brown | 59 |
| Issue: Whether the failure to allow a witness to be called at an adjudication without giving reasons for this refusal was proper. | |
| R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Gunn | 60 |
| Issue: Whether the Home Secretary had to accept recommendations of the Parole Board as to the transfer of life sentence prisoners to open conditions; whether he could seek the views of the Board under s32 Criminal Justice Act 1991. | |
| R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Gunn | 62 |
| Issue: Whether the Home Secretary had to accept recommendations of the Parole Board as to the transfer of life sentence prisoners to open conditions; whether he could seek the views of the Board under s32 Criminal Justice Act 1991. | |
| R v Governor, HMP Woodhill and Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Mehmet | 63 |
| Issue: Whether the Prison Service was required to take steps to facilitate communications between lawyers and prisoners involved in a ‘dirty protest’. | |
| Curley v UK | 65 |
| Issue: Whether the failure to provide a review of the post-tariff detention of a prisoner sentenced to detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure for murder amounted to a breach of Art 5.4 and Art 3 European Convention; the level of damages under Art 5.5. | |
| R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Hindley | 71 |
| Issue: whether a whole life tariff was lawful or reasonable; whether it was lawful to increase a tariff. | |
| R v Governor HMP Sudbury, Parole Board, and Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Minge | 77 |
| Issue: The reasonableness of a decision to transfer a life sentence prisoner from open to closed conditions on account of continued cannabis use. | |
| R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Davies | 81 |
| Issue: The rationality of a decision to recall a prisoner on Home Detention Curfew; whether the procedure was unfair because of the failure by the Home Secretary to make further inquiries. | |
| R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Ireland | 87 |
| Issue: Whether a decision to retain a prisoner in Category A conditions was lawful in light of the materials supporting a move to Category B conditions. | |
| Bollan v UK | 89 |
| Issue: Whether there were breaches of Arts 3, 5 or 11 of the Convention in placing a prisoner in her cell outside the powers of the Prison Rules (during which confinement she committed suicide) | |
| R v Governor, HMP Dartmoor ex p Brown | 95 |
| Issue: The propriety of a transfer on grounds that the prisoner was thought to be an escape risk. | |
| Musgrove v Governor, HMP Whitemoor | 98 |
| Issue: Whether a claim for lost property should be struck out. | |
| R v Governor, HMP Littlehey ex p Cooper | 100 |
| Issue: Whether a prisoner should use the internal appeal process to challenge a decision as to the Incentives and Earned Privileges Scheme before commencing judicial review proceedings; the rationality of the decision. | |
| R v Governor, HMP Frankland and Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Willoughby | 101 |
| Issue: Whether it was proper to prevent the prisoner enrolling on an Open University course in light of his offences. | |
| R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p S | 107 |
| Issue: Whether there was a proper exercise of the power of discretionary release on compassionate grounds. | |
| R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Simms | 109 |
| Issue: Whether it was irrational not to accept the recommendation of the Ombudsman that an adjudication should be set aside; whether it was appropriate to take into account statements in addition to the record of the adjudication. | |
| R v Parole Board ex p Hart | 118 |
| Issue: Whether the Parole Board carried out the required balancing exercise when not recommending a mandatory lifer’s transfer to open conditions. | |
| R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Grove | 125 |
| Issue: The fairness of the procedure adopted for the prisoner’s category A review. | |
| R v Deputy Controller, HMP Buckley Hall ex p Thomas | 128 |
| Issue: Whether the non-production of video footage of an alleged incident which led to the award of 21 additional days at a disciplinary adjudication was lawful and/or reasonable. | |
| R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Daly | 133 |
| Issue: Whether the gist going before the Category A Review Team could contain material inconsistent with the jury’s verdict. | |
| R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Hirst | 139 |
| Issue: Whether a post tariff discretionary lifer was entitled, as a matter of fairness, to be told of the reasons for a regressive move, prior to the move taking place. | |
| R v Governor, HMP Full Sutton ex p Russell | 145 |
| Issue: The preconditions for the lawfulness of an order to attend a mandatory drug test. | |
| R v Governor, HMP Frankland ex p Russell and Wharrie | 149 |
| Issue: Whether a policy of supplying one meal a day to prisoners who refused to wear prison clothes to collect their food from the servery was unlawful under the Prison Rules 1999 and contrary to Art 3 European Convention on Human Rights. | |
| R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Waldron | 156 |
| Issue: Whether a refusal to transfer a life sentence prisoner from Category B to Category C conditions was irrational. | |
| R v Governor of Brockhill Prison ex p Evans (No 2) | 160 |
| Issue: Whether damages for false imprisonment were payable to a prisoner whose release date had been calculated on the basis of judicial decisions which were overruled. | |
| R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Mellor | 175 |
| Issue: Whether the Secretary of State could refuse a prisoner’s request to provide a sample of semen at his expense for the purpose of artificially inseminating his wife. | |
| Marnon Clive Thomas, Nigel Anthony Johnson, Hopeton Falconer and Patrick Campbell v The Home Office | 188 |
| Issue: Whether it was negligent to allow an association period to go ahead during which 4 black prisoners were attacked by white prisoners; whether there was misfeasance in a public office arising out of racial abuse to the 4 prisoners. | |
| R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Harding | 200 |
| Issue: The lawfulness of an order to attend to be interviewed by an officer about a matter in front of the Board of Visitors. | |
| R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Harding | 201 |
| Issue: The lawfulness of an order to attend to be interviewed by an officer about a matter in front of the Board of Visitors; whether the prisoner should be produced at court to make oral representations. | |
| Frost v Secretary of State for the Home Department | 203 |
| Issue: the lawfulness of the policy of requiring non-uniformed prison employees to wear name badges. | |
| Marc Williams v Scottish Ministers | 207 |
| Issue: The calculation of the release date of a prisoner sentenced to a short-term sentence after being recalled to prisoner after release on licence from a long-term sentence; whether the two terms were to be aggregated for the purposes of the early-release provisions. | |
| William Varey v Scottish Ministers | 213 |
| Issue: Whether the revocation by the Scottish Ministers of the licence of a determinate sentence prisoner released on parole licence breached Art 5 European Convention. | |
| R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Quinn | 222 |
| Issue: Whether a decision not to reward meritorious conduct was irrational or procedurally unfair; what was the standard of review in relation to such a decision. | |
| Ha You Zhu v UK | 226 |
| Issue: Whether the conditions of detention of an immigration detainee breached Art 3 of the Convention | |
| R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Sarsfield | 230 |
| Issue: Whether the Home Secretary was entitled to seek additional reports before deciding whether to accept a Parole Board recommendation that a discretionary life sentence prisoner be transferred to open conditions. | |
| Oldham v UK | 232 |
| Issue: Whether a 2-year period between the reviews of a discretionary life sentence prisoner’s continued detention breached Art 5(4) European Convention | |
| R (On the Application of Dodson) v Parole Board and Secretary of State for the Home Department | 237 |
| Issue: Whether the Board gave adequate reasons for not recommending transfer to open conditions and allowing 2 years before the next review; whether disproportionate weight was given to denial of guilt. | |
| R (On the Application of MacNeil) v Parole Board | 246 |
| Issue: Whether decisions not to direct the release of a life sentence prisoner and not to recommend a further review in less than 2 years were irrational. | |
| R (On the Application of Jordan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Parole Board | 252 |
| Issue: Whether refusal to release on licence was irrational and/or had failed to take into account all relevant factors. | |
| R (On the Application of Burgess) v Secretary of State for the Home Department | 257 |
| Issue: Whether the Parole Board’s recommendation as to transfer to open conditions of a post-tariff discretionary lifer is covered by Art 5(4) European Convention on Human Rights and binding on the Home Secretary; what fairness requires when the Home Secretary rejects such a recommendation. | |
| Re Peter C | 268 |
| Issue: Whether the refusal of the Home Secretary to accept the advice of the Parole Board given under s32(2) Criminal Justice Act 1991 in relation to a recalled prisoner was lawful and/or rational. | |
| Burgess v Secretary of State for the Home Department | 271 |
| Issue: Whether the period a defendant spent in custody during the court day counted against his sentence. | |
| R (On the Application of Gordon) v Parole Board | 275 |
| Issue: Whether the Parole Board’s failure to recommend a mandatory life sentence prisoner’s transfer to open conditions was irrational, failed to give adequate reasons, or failed to carry out the necessary balancing act between risk and benefit. | |
| R v Offen and Others | 283 |
| Issue: Whether s2 Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 could be construed in a way compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. | |
| R (On the Application of Johnson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department | 297 |
| Issue: Whether the revocation of a licence on the basis of a further offence was rational in light of the sentencing judge’s preference to deal with the fresh offence by way of a probation order; the adequacy of the reasons given. | |
| Rehbock v Slovenia | 301 |
| Issue: Whether the force used on arrest breached Art 3 European Convention; whether medical treatment whilst in detention breached Art 3; whether a delay of 23 days in considering a bail application breached Art 5(4); whether the monitoring of correspondence with the European Commission breached Art 8. | |
| Zinzuwadia v Secretary of State for the Home Department | 315 |
| Issue: Whether the failure to prevent a prisoner committing suicide was negligent. | |
| R (On the Application of Entwistle) v Secretary of State for the Home Department | 321 |
| Issue: Whether it was lawful to include in a Category A “gist” references to the trial judge’s conclusions that he had committed an offence not in the indictment. | |
| R (On the Application of Maloney) v Governor, HMP Rochester | 323 |
| Issue: Whether there was a breach of natural justice in the conduct of an adjudication from the failure to call witnesses. | |
| R (On the Applications of Noorkoiv and Rogers) v Secretary of State for the Home Department | 328 |
| Issue: Whether the policy of requiring short-tariff automatic life sentence prisoners to spend time in open prison conditions before release, and yet to deny them a pre-tariff expiry review by the Parole Board without which they could not be transferred to open conditions, was lawful. | |
| Labita v Italy | 337 |
| Issue: Whether treatment in prison and failure of the authorities to investigate complaints breached Art 3 European Convention; whether censorship of correspondence breached Art 8; whether the length of proceedings and detention after acquittal breached Art 5 | |
| Niedbala v Poland | 361 |
| Issue: Whether the provisions of Arts 5(3), 5(4) and 8 European Convention were breached in the circumstances of N’s remand into custody and censorship of his correspondence with the Ombudsman. | |
| Satik and others v Turkey | 372 |
| Issue: Whether the conduct of the authorities revealed a breach of Art 2 and/or 3 European Convention from injuries received in prison. | |
| Kudla v Poland | 380 |
| Issue: Whether lack of treatment for a suicidal remand prisoner breached Art 3 European Convention; whether the length of detention on remand and of the proceedings breached Arts 5 and 6, and whether the lack of an effective domestic remedy breached Art 13. | |
| R (Davies) v Secretary of State for the Home Department | 403 |
| Issue: The rationality of a decision to recall a prisoner on Home Detention Curfew; whether the procedure was unfair because of the failure by the Home Secretary to make further inquiries. | |
View as
Sort by
Display
per page
