2007
|
|
Cases Reported |
| R (Buddington) v Home Secretary (Administrative Court) | 1 |
| Issue: Whether a prisoner released on licence under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 could be recalled under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 | |
| R (Buddington) v Home Secretary (Court of Appeal) | 9 |
| Issue: Whether a prisoner released on licence under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 could be recalled under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2004 | |
| R (Stellato) v Home Secretary (Administrative Court) | 14 |
| Issue: Whether a prisoner entitled to be released unconditionally at the three-quarter point of his sentence at the time he was sentenced was subject to the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 that provided for the licence existing until the end of the sentence. | |
| R (Stellato) v Home Secretary (Court of Appeal) | 20 |
| Issue: Whether a prisoner entitled to be released unconditionally at the three-quarter point of his sentence at the time he was sentenced was subject to the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 that provided for the licence existing until the end of the sentence. | |
| R (Stellato) v Home Secretary (House of Lords) | 29 |
| Issue: Whether a prisoner entitled to be released unconditionally at the three-quarter point of his sentence at the time he was sentenced was subject to the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 that provided for the licence existing until the end of the sentence. | |
| R (Nejad) v Home Secretary | 37 |
| Issue: Whether the Home Secretary could depart from the Lord Chief’s Justice’s advice on setting the tariff of a discretionary lifer subject to the transitional arrangements for tariff-setting under the Criminal Justice Act 1991. | |
| Ilascu and Others v Moldova and Russia | 42 |
| Issue: Whether there were breaches of Arts 2, 3 and 8 ECHR in relation to the imposition of a sentence of death and conditions of detention; whether Art 5 was breached by detention following a trial in front of a court without a constitutional basis. | |
| Jankauskas v Lithuania | 63 |
| Issue: Whether censorship of correspondence breached Art 8 ECHR | |
| R (Gardner) v Parole Board (Administrative Court) | 66 |
| Issue: Whether the Board had lawfully excluded a prisoner from a part of a hearing when it heard evidence from his ex-wife. | |
| R (Gardner) v Parole Board (Court of Appeal) | 78 |
| Issue: Whether the Board had lawfully excluded a prisoner from a part of a hearing when it heard evidence from his ex-wife. | |
| R (Faulkner) v Home Secretary | 82 |
| Issue: Whether a delay of more than a year between reviews of the detention of a life sentence prisoner by the Parole Board was lawful; whether the prisoner should have been allowed to make representations on a psychology report used in deciding whether to accept a Parole Board recommendation for transfer to open conditions. | |
| R (Wright) v Home Secretary | 89 |
| Issue: Whether a mandatory lifer could claim damages for breach of Art 5 ECHR in relation to decisions made in the 1990s. | |
| Home Office v Butchart | 99 |
| Issue: Whether there was a duty of care to a prisoner to prevent psychiatric injury arising from placement in a cell with a suicidal prisoner | |
| R (K) v Parole Board | 103 |
| Issue: Whether a refusal to grant parole to a young offender was procedurally fair in light of the lack of adult assistance in drafting representations, the failure to consider an oral hearing and the failure to interview him. | |
| R (Solomon) v Parole Board | 110 |
| Issue: Whether the Board erroneously placed a burden of proof on a recalled extended sentence prisoner. | |
| Karagozlu v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis | 115 |
| Issue: Whether transfer from an open prison to a closed prison amounts to sufficient damage to found a claim in misfeasance | |
| R (Clift) v Home Secretary; R (Hindawi and Headley) v Home Secretary | 125 |
| Issue: Whether the Home Secretary’s power to decide the release of those serving 15 years or more breached Arts 5 and 14 ECHR; whether it was lawful to discriminate between prisoners who subject to a deportation order with those who were not in respect of early release on parole. | |
| Mamedova v Russia | 138 |
| Issue: Whether conditions of detention breached Art 3 ECHR; whether Art 5(4) was breached when the prisoner was not able to attend a court hearing to describe the conditions of detention. | |
| Popov v Russia | 144 |
| Issue: Whether the conditions of detention and medical attention available in prison breached Art 3 ECHR; whether there was improper interference with the right of petition. | |
| Ramirez Sanchez v France | 169 |
| Issue: Whether the conditions of detention in solitary confinement breached Art 3 ECHR; whether there was an effective remedy. | |
| R v Nicholas Guy Tucker | 201 |
| Issue: Whether the tariff of a mandatory life sentence prisoner could be reduced to take account of exceptional progress in custody. | |
| R (A) v Governor of Huntercombe YOI and Home Secretary | 204 |
| Issue: Whether an assurance that a prisoner would be released immediately if a court so recommended gave rise to exceptional circumstances justifying compassionate release. | |
| Holomiov v Moldova | 211 |
| Issue: Whether the absence of adequate medical care in custody was in breach of Art 3 ECHR | |
| R (Chindamo) v Home Secretary | 218 |
| Issue: Whether a decision to transfer all foreign prisoners serving long-term or life sentences in open conditions to closed conditions pending individual risk assessments was lawful | |
| R (Ramsden and Naylor) v Home Secretary | 220 |
| Issue: Whether prisoners released on home detention curfew could be recalled under the general power of recall applicable to prisoners released on licence or could only be recalled under the power relating to those on home detention curfew | |
| Hénaf v France | 225 |
| Issue: Whether the use of restraints when a prisoner was in a civilian hospital breached Art 3 ECHR | |
| R (Hirst) v (1) Home Secretary (2) Parole Board | 232 |
| Issue: Whether the scheme for the recall of life sentence prisoners was in breach of Art 5(4) ECHR in the absence of an immediate and preliminary review of the recall. | |
| GK v Poland | 236 |
| Issue: Whether censorship of correspondence with the Court breached Arts 8 and 34 ECHR | |
| Pisk-Piskowski v Poland | 240 |
| Issue: Whether censorship of correspondence with the Court breached Arts 8 and 34 ECHR | |
| Michta v Poland | 241 |
| Issue: Whether censorship of correspondence with the Court breached Art 8 ECHR | |
| Ceglowski v Poland | 242 |
| Issue: Whether censorship of correspondence with the Court breached Art 8 ECHR | |
| Cabala v Poland | 244a |
| Issue: Whether censorship of correspondence with the Court breached Art 8 ECHR | |
| Maksym v Poland | 244b |
| Issue: Whether censorship of correspondence with the Court breached Arts 8 and 34 ECHR | |
| Nowicki v Poland | 246a |
| Issue: Whether censorship of correspondence with the Court breached Art 8 ECHR | |
| Klyakhin v Russia | 246b |
| Issue: Whether the censorship of correspondence with the Court breached Arts 8, 13 and 34 ECHR | |
| Nurmagomedov v Russia | 249 |
| Issue: Whether the censorship of correspondence with the Court breached Art 34 ECHR | |
| Fedotov v Russia | 252 |
| Issue: Whether conditions of detention breached Art 3 ECHR. | |
| Khudobin v Russia | 259 |
| Issue: Whether the absence of adequate medical treatment breached Art 3 ECHR | |
| Tarariyeva v Russia | 270 |
| Issue: Whether a failure to provide treatment in detention breached Art 2 ECHR; whether the use of handcuffs in a civilian hospital breached Art 3 | |
| Čiapas v Lithuania | 277 |
| Issue: Whether censorship of correspondence breached Art 8 ECHR | |
| Puzinas (no 2) v Lithuania | 281 |
| Issue: Whether a disciplinary punishment for not sending a complaint through the prison administration breached Arts 8, 10 or 11 ECHR. | |
| Young v UK | 285 |
| Issue: Whether prison disciplinary proceedings breached Art 6 ECHR; the appropriate remedy; whether there were arguable breaches of Arts 3, 5, 8, 13 and 14 ECHR. | |
| Black v UK | 296 |
| Issue: Whether prison disciplinary proceedings breached Art 6 ECHR; remedy. | |
| Estrikh v Latvia | 297 |
| Issue: Whether restrictions on visits in prison and/or deportation breached Art 8 ECHR | |
| Gębura v Poland | 300 |
| Issue: Whether a delay in releasing a prisoner granted early release breached Art 5 ECHR. | |
| Belevitskiy v Russia | 305 |
| Issue: Whether conditions of detention breached Art 3 ECHR | |
| Frolov Russia | 306 |
| Issue: Whether conditions of detention breached Art 3 ECHR | |
| Benediktov v Russia | 310 |
| Issue: Whether conditions of detention breached Art 3 ECHR; whether Art 13 was breached | |
| Ivanov v Russia | 314 |
| Issue: Whether conditions of detention breached Art 3 ECHR | |
| Nurmagomedov v Russia – Admissibility Decision | 317 |
| Issue: Whether conditions of detention breached Art 3 ECHR | |
| Potter v Scottish Prison Service | 320 |
| Issue: Whether a pre-recorded message on all outgoing calls by prisoners to indicate that the call was from prison breached Art 8 ECHR | |
| Istratii and Others v Moldova | 329 |
| Issue: Whether conditions of detention and the lack of medical treatment breached Art 3 ECHR; whether the lack of confidential access to lawyers breached Art 5(4) | |
| Wedler v Poland | 341 |
| Issue: Whether conditions of detention breached Art 3 ECHR | |
| R (Highton) v Governor of HMYOI Lancaster Farms and Home Secretary | 344 |
| Issue: Whether a sentence calculation was correct; whether it was irrational to treat a defendant as having been unlawfully at large when he was released by mistake. | |
| R (Cooper) v Parole Board | 352 |
| Issue: Whether a delay of over 3 months from the recall of a life sentence prisoner to a hearing date before the Parole Board breached Art 5(4) ECHR; whether the prisoner’s deteriorating mental health was relevant to the listing of the hearing. | |
| R (Johnson) v Home Secretary and Parole Board (Administrative Court) | 360 |
| Issue: Whether a delay in considering an application for discretionary release on parole breached Art 5(4) ECHR | |
| R (Johnson) v Home Secretary and Parole Board (Court of Appeal) | 365 |
| Issue: Whether a delay in considering an application for discretionary release on parole breached Art 5(4) ECHR | |
| R (Gulliver) v Parole Board (Administrative Court) | 371 |
| Issue: Whether the Parole Board was required to release a recalled prisoner when the basis for the recall was shown to the incorrect | |
| R (Gulliver) v Parole Board (Court of Appeal) | 376 |
| Issue: Whether the Parole Board was required to release a recalled prisoner when the basis for the recall was shown to the incorrect | |
| R (Churchman) v West Midlands Probation Board | 384 |
| Issue: Whether the refusal to provide hostels to allow a life sentence prisoner in open conditions to be tested in the community was lawful | |
| Paladi v Moldova | 391 |
| Issue: Whether conditions in detention, including the failure to failure to provide adequate medical treatment, breached Art 3 ECHR; whether detention was in breach of Art 5; whether the failure to comply with interim measures breached Art 34. | |
| Cenbauer v Croatia | 403 |
| Issue: Whether conditions of detention breached Art 3 ECHR | |
| Koval v Ukraine | 407 |
| Issue: Whether conditions of detention breached Art 3 ECHR; whether the absence of a domestic remedy breached Art 13 | |
| Testa v Croatia | 414 |
| Issue: Whether conditions of detention breached Art 3 ECHR | |
View as
Sort by
Display
per page
