2010 Volume 1
|
|
Cases Reported |
| Kafkaris v Cyprus | 1 |
| Issue: Whether a mandatory life sentence for murder breached Art 3 ECHR; whether changing the approach to life sentences, from treating them as involving 20 years’ imprisonment to an understanding that they could entail detention for life, breached Arts 3, 5 or 7 ECHR; whether there was differential treatment that breached Art 14 ECHR. | |
| de Boucherville v State of Mauritius | 45 |
| Issue: Whether a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment was inhuman and degrading treatment; whether it breached the right to a fair trial. | |
| R v Bieber | 51 |
| Issue: Whether a whole life tariff breached Art 3 ECHR; whether it was appropriate on the facts. | |
| R (Wellington) v Secretary of State for the Home Department | 61 |
| Issue: Whether extradition to the USA for an offence carrying a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole breached Art 3 ECHR and thus operated as a bar to extradition. | |
| Renolde v France | 78 |
| Issue: Whether the failure to prevent the suicide of a mentally-ill prisoner breached Art 2 ECHR; whether a disciplinary punishment involving segregation breached Art 3. | |
| R (Allen) v Secretary of State for Justice, Governor of HMP Belmarsh | 95 |
| Issue: Whether the ECHR was breached by placing a remand prisoner into the Exceptional Escape Risk classification within Category A, or by the consequence of that decision; whether fairness required allowing representations in advance of the decision. | |
| R (Shields) v Secretary of State for Justice | 100 |
| Issue: Whether the Secretary of State could grant a pardon to a prisoner who had been transferred to the UK under the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984. | |
| R (MacKenzie) v Secretary of State for Justice | 107 |
| Issue: Whether a decision to retain a prisoner in Category A conditions was rational; whether Art 5(4) ECHR was engaged and whether anxious scrutiny was the appropriate standard of review. | |
| R (MacKenzie) v Secretary of State for Justice | 109 |
| Issue: Whether a decision to retain a prisoner in Category A conditions was rational; whether Art 5(4) ECHR was engaged and whether anxious scrutiny was the appropriate standard of review. | |
| R (Gerald Martin Smith) v Secretary of State for Justice | 115 |
| Issue: Whether a decision to place a prisoner in a higher security category after a confiscation order was made and he was found in possession of a mobile phone was irrational. | |
| R (Morton) v Parole Board | 118 |
| Issue: Whether a refusal to release on parole should be quashed in light of 2 alleged errors of fact. | |
| R v Hills, R v Davies, R v Pomfret | 122 |
| Issue: Whether a determinate term could be designated to start on a future date, being when a minimum term on an existing indeterminate sentence would come to an end. | |
| R (Smith) v Governor of HMP Belmarsh, Home Secretary | 126 |
| Issue: Whether the nature of an offence alleged meant that a disciplinary charge against a life-sentence prisoner should have been heard by an independent adjudicator to comply with Art 6 ECHR; whether the process followed, including a decision not to allow legal representation, was unfair. | |
| R (Headley) v Parole Board | 135 |
| Issue: Whether an adverse finding by the Parole Board was procedurally fair in light of the failure to call a witness whose allegations were central to the assessment of risk. | |
| R (Khan) v Parole Board and Secretary of State for Justice | 142 |
| Issue: Whether the failure to provide offending behaviour work for a prisoner imprisoned for public protection breached Art 5(1) ECHR; whether delays in the parole process breached Art 5(4) and/or were so long as to breach Art 5(1). | |
| R (C, a Minor, by his Litigation Friend, MS) v Secretary of State for Justice | 146 |
| Issue: Whether amendments to the Secure Training Rules 1998 to allow for removal from association and the use of restraint for “good order and discipline” were unlawful for failure to consult adequately, failure to conduct a race equality impact assessment, and breach of Arts 3, 8 and 14 ECHR. | |
| R (C, a Minor, by his Litigation Friend, MS) v Secretary of State for Justice | 156 |
| Issue: Whether amendments to the Secure Training Rules 1998 to allow for removal from association and the use of restraint for “good order and discipline” should be quashed in light of failures to consult adequately or conduct a Race Equality Impact Assessment; whether they breached Arts 3 and 8 ECHR. | |
| Trepashkin v Russia | 170 |
| Issue: Whether an applicant had victim status in relation to a claim under Art 5 ECHR or had exhausted domestic remedies; whether conditions of detention breached Art 3 ECHR. | |
| Kantyrev v Russia | 184 |
| Issue: Whether conditions of detention breached Art 3 ECHR. | |
| Dorokhov v Russia | 186 |
| Issue: Whether conditions of detention breached Art 3 ECHR. | |
| Korobov, Savelyev and Tsyplov v Russia | 189 |
| Issue: Whether conditions of detention breached Art 3 ECHR. | |
| Sukhovoy v Russia | 191 |
| Issue: Whether conditions of detention breached Art 3 ECHR. | |
| Gusev v Russia | 193 |
| Issue: Whether conditions of detention breached Art 3 ECHR. | |
| Vlasov v Russia | 195 |
| Issue: Whether conditions of detention breached Art 3 ECHR; whether conditions of transport breached Art 3; whether restrictions on family visits and correspondence breached Art 8. | |
| Seleznev v Russia | 204 |
| Issue: Whether conditions of detention breached Art 3 ECHR. | |
| Paladi v Moldova | 207 |
| 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. | |
| R (Wilkinson) v Secretary of State for Justice | 225 |
| Issue: Whether consideration of continued placement in Category A conditions required an oral hearing. | |
| R (Coleman) v Governor, HMP Wayland and Others | 231 |
| Issue: Whether the destruction of a mobile phone confiscated from a prisoner was lawful. | |
| R (O’Connell) v (1) Parole Board and (2) Home Secretary | 244 |
| 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 v Wilson (Simon Tyler) | 250 |
| Issue: Whether a whole life term was proper. | |
| R (Nelson) v Secretary of State for Justice | 253 |
| Issue: Whether a decision to admit a prisoner to a Close Supervision Centre was rational; the role of the Director of High Security in the decision-making process. | |
| R v Pedley, Martin and Hamadi | 258 |
| Issue: Whether the sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection was compatible with the requirements of Arts 3 and/or 5 ECHR unless the “significant risk of serious harm” test in the statute was understood to apply only if the risk amounted to “more likely than not” or at least a numerically-expressed test of more than 35-50%. | |
| R (Nathan Brooks) v Secretary of State for Justice and Isle of Wight Primary Care Trust | 266 |
| Issue: Whether a failure to provide escorts to allow a prisoner to attend hospital was in breach of policy; the appropriate remedy. | |
| R (Biggin) v Secretary of State for Justice | 269 |
| Issue: Whether there had been a breach of Art 5(4) ECHR in relation to a hearing before the Parole Board for an indeterminate sentence prisoner; whether an award of damages was necessary. | |
| R (Brooke) v Secretary of State for Justice | 276 |
| Issue: Whether the differential treatment in terms of release before the statutory entitlement to release of long-term prisoners and those liable to deportation breached Art 14 and 5 ECHR; whether the policy breached s71(1)(b) Race Relations Act 1976. | |
| Novak v Croatia | 281 |
| Issue: Whether inadequate treatment for PTSD breached Art 3 ECHR. | |
| Stojanović v Serbia | 286 |
| Issue: Whether requiring prisoners to submit letters to the authorities unopened to be posted breached Art 8 ECHR; whether a complaint under Arts 3 and 8 ECHR, and Art 1 of Protocol 12, relating to the non-supply of dentures to a prisoner should be considered in light of the supply of dentures after more than 3 years. | |
| R v Bamber (Jeremy) | 297 |
| Issue: Whether a whole life tariff breached Art 3 ECHR or was unlawfully retrospective. | |
| R v Pitchfork | 304 |
| Issue: The approach to the re-setting of a minimum term under the Criminal Justice Act 2003; the approach to exceptional progress in custody. | |
View as
Sort by
Display
per page
