2006 Volume 1
|
|
Cases Reported |
| R (Hammond) v Home Secretary | 1 |
| Issue: Whether the failure to allow an oral hearing as part of the process for setting the tariff of an existing mandatory life sentence prisoner was compatible with Art 6. | |
| R (Smith) v Home Secretary | 12 |
| Issue: Whether the Home Secretary is obliged to offer an occasional review of the tariff fixed in relation to those sentenced prior to 30 November 2000 to detention during Her Majesty’s Pleasure for murder. | |
| R (Dudson) v Home Secretary | 19 |
| Issue: Whether there was a right to an oral hearing when the Lord Chief Justice refixed the tariff length of a prisoner detained during Her Majesty’s pleasure. | |
| Thompson v Mitchell | 27 |
| Issue: Whether a judge could order that a term imposed for contempt be served in full. | |
| R (Irving) v Parole Board | 29 |
| Issue: Whether recall from licence required an increased risk from that present at the time of release. | |
| Poltoratskiy v Ukraine | 33 |
| Issue: Whether the conditions of detention breached Art 3; whether there had been assaults which breached Art 3; whether the investigation breached Art 3; whether restrictions on visits breached Art 8; whether limits on visits from a priest breached Art 9. | |
| Aliev v Ukraine | 54 |
| Issue: Whether the conditions of detention breached Art 3; whether there had been assaults in breach of Art 3; whether restrictions on visits and correspondence breached Art 8 | |
| Iorgov v Bulgaria | 58 |
| Issue: Whether the conditions of detention of a death row inmate breached Art 3 | |
| II v Bulgaria | 70 |
| Issue: Whether the conditions of detention of a remand prisoner breached Art 3 European Convention. | |
| Rohde v Denmark | 77 |
| Issue: Whether the use of solitary confinement breached Art 3 | |
| Ostrovar v Moldova | 99 |
| Issue: Whether the conditions of detention breached Art 3; whether restrictions on correspondence and family visits breached Art 8 | |
| Karalevicius v Lithuania | 114 |
| Issue: Whether conditions of detention breached Art 3; remedy for breach of Art 3, 5 and 8 | |
| Labzov v Russia | 116 |
| Issue: Whether the conditions of detention breached Art 3 | |
| Mayzit v Russia | 117 |
| Issue: Whether the conditions of detention breached Art 3 | |
| Kehayov v Bulgaria | 118 |
| Issue: Whether the conditions of detention breached Art 3 | |
| Nevmerzhitsky v Ukraine | 119 |
| Issue: Whether conditions of detention and the use of force-feeding breached Art 3 | |
| R (Broadbent) v Parole Board | 137 |
| Issue: Whether the Board erred in considering the risk of reoffending too high for release in the case of a recalled prisoner who had been charged with further offences he denied. | |
| R (Bryant) v Home Secretary | 142 |
| Issue: Whether a recategorisation decision was lawful. | |
| R (Gilbert) v Home Secretary | 149 |
| Issue: Whether a sentence calculation was correct in light of the provisions of s40A Criminal Justice Act 1991 | |
| R v George Leigers | 154 |
| Issue: Whether a whole life tariff was appropriate for a murder committed by a man with mental health problems; the appropriate tariff | |
| R (Spinks) v Home Secretary | 159 |
| Issue: Whether Art 3 was engaged in relation to a refusal to release a prisoner on compassionate grounds; whether the case should be referred to the Parole Board. | |
| R (Spinks) v Home Secretary | 166 |
| Issue: Whether Art 3 was engaged in relation to a refusal to release a prisoner on compassionate grounds; whether the case should be referred to the Parole Board. | |
| R (Bealey) v Home Secretary | 175 |
| Issue: Whether the refusal to follow a Parole Board recommendation that a lifer be transferred to open conditions was adequately reasoned and rational. | |
| R (Bernard) v (1) Home Secretary (2) Parole Board | 180 |
| Issue: Whether there had been a breach of Art 5(4) as a result of a delay between Parole Board hearings in relation to a discretionary life sentence prisoner; whether damages were required. | |
| R (Tinney) v Parole Board | 189 |
| Issue: Whether a decision to refuse release on parole was rational and/or adequately reasoned. | |
| R (X) v Home Secretary and Others | 194 |
| Issue: Whether a refusal to allow release on temporary licence breached Art 8 European Convention or was procedurally unfair. | |
| R (Morecock) v Parole Board | 199 |
| Issue: Whether a decision not to release a recalled prisoner was rational | |
| R (Davies) v Home Secretary | 205 |
| Issue: The lawfulness of conditions imposed on a released young offender; whether they amounted to ongoing detention. | |
| R (Irving) v London Probation Board | 209 |
| Issue: Whether the failure to provide suitable hostel accommodation for a high-risk offender who had mental health problems was unlawful. | |
| R (Hirst) v (1) Home Secretary (2) Parole Board | 212 |
| Issue: Whether there were breaches of Art 5(1), (2), (3) and (4) in the recall of a life sentence prisoner; the appropriate remedy. | |
| Hirst v UK (Grand Chamber) | 220 |
| Issue: Whether a blanket ban on voting by serving prisoners breached Art 3 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention. | |
| R (Cooper) v HM Prison Service | 241 |
| Issue: Whether decisions to recategorise a post-tariff lifer and to refuse him access to his own computer were lawful. | |
| R (Lunn) v Governor HMP Moorland | 249 |
| Issue: Whether a period of release on licence consequent on a mistaken early release arising from an error in the drafting of a court order counted towards the custodial part of the accurately-calculated sentence. | |
| R (Lunn) v Governor HMP Moorland | 251 |
| Issue: Whether a period of release on licence consequent on a mistaken early release arising from an error in the drafting of a court order counted towards the custodial part of the accurately calculated sentence. | |
| R (Mills) v (1) Home Secretary (2) Parole Board | 256 |
| Issue: Whether a failure to consider whether to recommend a transfer of a recalled lifer to open conditions was lawful | |
| Roberts v Home Secretary | 260 |
| Issue: Whether there was a breach of Art 5 European Convention by virtue of the failure to set aside the recall of a prisoner released on licence | |
| Watkins v Home Secretary and others | 268 |
| Issue: Whether the tort of misfeasance in a public office was complete without proof of special damage. | |
View as
Sort by
Display
per page
