2008
|
|
Cases Reported |
| Baybaşin v Netherlands | 1 |
| Issue: Whether routine strip searches in prison breached Art 3 ECHR; whether a remedy should be awarded when there were ongoing domestic proceedings claiming damages. | |
| R (E) v Home Secretary | 18 |
| Issue: Whether the Administrative Court could review a decision as to the prison in which a prisoner was located during a trial and whether it should. | |
| R (Conrad) v Home Secretary | 28 |
| Issue: Whether a 2-year period between reviews by the Parole Board of a mandatory life sentence prisoner’s ongoing detention was compatible with Art 5(4) ECHR. | |
| R (Martin) v Secretary of State for Justice | 30 |
| Issue: Whether a short-term prisoner under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 who was not in custody at the three-quarter point of the sentence was on licence and subject to recall. | |
| R v C, Bartley, Baldrey, Price and Broad | 35 |
| Issue: The correct approach to consecutive extended sentences or extended sentences consecutive to determinate sentences. | |
| R v Stephen Kenny Ashes | 44 |
| Issue: The correct approach to fixing a minimum term and to credit for time spent in custody when a prisoner already serving a determinate term was made subject to a sentence of imprisonment for public protection. | |
| R (Wells) v Parole Board; R (Walker) v Home Secretary | 49 |
| Issue: Whether the approach in relation to providing offending behaviour work for prisoners imprisoned for public protection with a short tariff was lawful. | |
| R (James) v Secretary of State for Justice | 60 |
| Issue: Whether the unlawful failure to provide offending behaviour work for prisoners imprisoned for public protection with a short tariff meant that detention was unlawful once the tariff period had expired. | |
| R (Walker and James) v Secretary of State for Justice | 63 |
| Issue: Whether the approach in relation to providing offending behaviour work for prisoners imprisoned for public protection with a short tariff was lawful; whether detention of prisoners adversely affected was lawful. | |
| R (Brooke and Others) v Parole Board and Others | 76 |
| Issue: Whether the Parole Board was sufficiently independent of the Executive to comply with the common law test of apparent bias and/or Art 5(4) ECHR | |
| R (O’Connell) v (1) Parole Board and (2) Home Secretary | 93 |
| Issue: Whether Art 5(4) ECHR applied to the decision as to whether to release an extended sentence prisoner; whether Art 5(4) or common law required an oral hearing in front of the Parole Board | |
| R (Brooke and Others) v Parole Board and Others | 99 |
| Issue: Whether the Parole Board was sufficiently independent of the Executive to comply with the common law test of apparent bias and/or Art 5(4) ECHR | |
| R (JB) v GSL UK Ltd | 115 |
| Issue: Whether the use of handcuffs during hospital visits breached Arts 3 or 8 ECHR. | |
| R (Emirsoylu) v Parole Board | 121 |
| Issue: Whether a decision to uphold a recall was lawful; whether the date set for the next review was lawful. | |
| R (Page) v Secretary of State for Justice | 126 |
| Issue: Whether a decision not to release a prisoner early was lawful. | |
| R (Benson) v Secretary of State for Justice | 132 |
| Issue: Whether a decision to recall a prisoner from release on Home Detention Curfew was fair; whether Art 5(4) ECHR applied to the process. | |
| R (Black) v Home Secretary | 138 |
| Issue: Whether the Home Secretary was required to accept a recommendation from the Parole Board as to the release on parole of a very long-term determinate sentence prisoner; whether Art 5(4) ECHR applied | |
| R (Hill) v Home Secretary | 148 |
| Issue: Whether a decision to refuse to accept a Parole Board recommendation that a mandatory lifer be transferred to open conditions was lawful | |
| R (Banfield) v Secretary of State for Justice | 158 |
| Issue: Whether the failure to accept a Parole Board recommendation that a recalled lifer be transferred to open conditions was procedurally unfair or irrational | |
| R (Bewry) v Home Secretary | 167 |
| Issue: Whether it was intra vires to amend the Prison Rules 1999 to provide that members of prison Independent Monitoring Boards did not have access to covert human intelligence source material. | |
| R (Cawley) v (1) Parole Board and (2) Secretary of State for Justice | 171 |
| Issue: Whether the delays in a Parole Board hearing breached Art 5(4) ECHR | |
| Smith v Scott (Electoral Registration Officer) | 177 |
| Issue: Whether a declaration of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act 1998 or a common law declaration should be granted in relation to the law excluding serving prisoners from being able to vote | |
| XY v Scottish Ministers, Lord Advocate and Secretary of State for Scotland | 189 |
| Issue: Whether it was lawful to recall a prisoner to prison when the effect was that they lost their right to vote in a pending election | |
| R (Mehmet) v London Probation Board | 196 |
| Issue: Whether it was lawful to refuse permission for a released prisoner to travel abroad in connection with proposed employment | |
| Re CD | 200 |
| Issue: Whether proceedings before the Life Sentence Review Commissioners that lasted from November 2001 to August 2005 breached Art 5(4) ECHR; whether the failure to call alleged victims of indecent assaults to give evidence was unfair; whether more cogent evidence than usual was required to conclude that an allegation of sexual abuse was made out. | |
| Re John William Mullan | 207 |
| Issue: Whether the recall of a life sentence prisoner breached Art 5(1) ECHR; whether the Secretary of State should have obtained a recommendation from the Life Sentence Review Commissioners; whether the delay in considering the case, largely from awaiting ongoing criminal proceedings, breached Art 5(4) ECHR; whether compensation was required. | |
| Re CD (No 2) | 217 |
| Issue: Whether the finding that the Life Sentence Review Commissioners had erred in law or the absence of judicial authorisation for detention for several months meant that Art 5(1) ECHR was breached such that compensation or bail could be sought | |
| Re CD | 219 |
| Issue: Whether proceedings before the Life Sentence Review Commissioners that lasted from November 2001 to August 2005 breached Art 5(4) ECHR; whether the failure to call alleged victims of indecent assaults to give evidence was unfair; whether more cogent evidence than usual was required to conclude that an allegation of sexual abuse was made out. | |
| R (Shreeve) v Home Secretary | 229 |
| Issue: Whether a disciplinary conviction for possession of an unauthorised item was proper | |
| R (Gibson, Kelly and Bailey) v Secretary of State for Justice | 236 |
| Issue: Whether prisoners to whom the early release provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 were applicable who had been recalled and then released under the procedures of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 at the three-quarter point of their sentence were entitled to be released unconditionally | |
| R (Kelly, Bailey and Gibson) v Secretary of State for Justice | 241 |
| Issue: Whether prisoners to whom the early release provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 were applicable who had been recalled and then released under the procedures of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 at the three-quarter point of their sentence were entitled to be released unconditionally | |
| Iovchev v Bulgaria | 248 |
| Issue: Whether conditions of detention breached Art 3 ECHR; whether the absence of a domestic remedy breached Art 13 | |
| Melnik v Ukraine | 253 |
| Issue: Whether conditions of detention, including in relation to medical treatment for TB, breached Art 3 ECHR; whether the absence of a domestic remedy breached Art 13 | |
| Dvoynykh v Ukraine | 260 |
| Issue: Whether conditions of detention breached Art 3 ECHR; whether the absence of a domestic remedy breached Art 13 | |
| Babushkin v Russia | 266 |
| Issue: Whether conditions of detention breached Art 3 ECHR; whether there had been ill-treatment in breach of Art 3 and whether a prisoner had contracted TB in breach of Art 3 | |
| Yakovenko v Ukraine | 270 |
| Issue: Whether conditions of detention and transport breached Art 3 ECHR; whether the level of medical treatment breach Art 3; whether the absence of a domestic remedy breached Art 13 | |
| Lebedev v Russia | 280 |
| Issue: Whether there were breaches of Arts 3, 5(1), 5(3) and 5(4) ECHR; the applicability of Art 5(4) to bail proceedings | |
| Banks and Others v UK | 300 |
| Issue: Whether the failure to have an independent inquiry into alleged assaults and a fatality, breached Arts 2, 3 and/or 13 ECHR | |
| Bagel v Russia | 308 |
| Issue: Whether conditions of detention, including the medical assistance provided, breached Art 3 ECHR; whether conditions of transport breached Art 3 | |
| Grishin v Russia | 312 |
| Issue: Whether conditions of detention breached Art 3 ECHR; whether lack of adequate medical treatment and alleged ill-treatment breached Art 3 | |
| R (Graham and Allen) v Secretary of State for Justice | 316 |
| Issue: Whether the use of handcuffs on prisoners during hospital treatment breached Art 3 ECHR | |
| Dickson v UK | 323 |
| Issue: Whether the failure to allow a life sentence prisoner and his wife to use artificial insemination breached Arts 8 and 12 ECHR | |
| Dickson v UK | 334 |
| Issue: Whether the failure to allow a life sentence prisoner and his wife to use artificial insemination breached Arts 8 and 12 ECHR | |
| Warsiński v Poland | 351 |
| Issue: Whether censorship of correspondence with the ECtHR breached Art 8 ECHR | |
| Lind v Russia | 353 |
| Issue: Whether conditions of detention breached Art 3 ECHR; whether the failure to allow a prisoner to attend a funeral or to make alternative arrangements breached Arts 3 and/or 8. | |
| Dybeku v Albania | 360 |
| Issue: Whether conditions of detention breached Art 3 ECHR in light of the mental illness of a prisoner; whether the rejection of an application to transfer him from prison or release him breached Art 6. | |
| R (T) v Home Secretary | 371 |
| Issue: Whether the conditions of detention of an immigration detainee held in prison for his own protection breached Arts 3, 5 and/or 8 ECHR | |
| R (Haase) v Independent Adjudicator and Secretary of State for Justice | 378 |
| Issue: Whether the lack of an independent prosecutor for disciplinary adjudications breached Art 6 ECHR | |
| R (Lake) v Governor, HMP Highdown, Independent Adjudicator and Secretary of State for Justice | 389 |
| Issue: Whether a disciplinary conviction was unfair in light of the non-attendance of a witness for the defence | |
| R (Haase) v Independent Adjudicator and Secretary of State for Justice | 391 |
| Issue: Whether the lack of an independent prosecutor for disciplinary adjudications breached Art 6 ECHR | |
| Wainwright v UK | 398 |
| Issue: Whether strip-searches of visitors to prison breached Arts 3 and/or 8 ECHR; whether the lack of a domestic remedy breached Art 13. | |
| Boicenco v Moldova | 409 |
| Issue: Whether there were breaches of Art 3 ECHR from ill-treatment, inadequate medical care and an inadequate investigation into the ill-treatment; whether there had been an interference with the right of individual petition; the remedy to be awarded. | |
View as
Sort by
Display
per page
