1999
|
|
Cases Reported |
| R v Parole Board ex p Bagnall | 1 |
| Issue: Whether a refusal of parole was unreasonable. | |
| Hartshorn v Home Office | 4 |
| Issue: Whether the Prison Service negligently failed to prevent an attack on a prisoner. | |
| argaret Brooks v Home Office | 7 |
| Issue: Whether the failure to transfer a pregnant prisoner to an outside hospital was negligent; whether it was causative of the stillbirth of one of her twins. | |
| R v Home Secretary ex p Mehmet and O’Connor | 12 |
| Issue: The procedural requirements for allocation to or continued detention to a Close Supervision Centre. | |
| R v Home Secretary ex p Easterbrook | 23 |
| Issue: Whether the tariff fixed for a discretionary lifer was unreasonable; whether fairness required an oral hearing before the tariff was fixed. | |
| R v Home Secretary ex p Easterbrook | 30 |
| Issue: Whether the tariff fixed for a discretionary lifer was unreasonable; whether fairness required an oral hearing before the tariff was fixed. | |
| R v Toney | 32 |
| Issue: Alteration of sentence because of effect of Home Detention Curfew regime | |
| R v Povey | 33 |
| Issue: Alteration of sentence because of effect of Home Detention Curfew regime | |
| R v Home Secretary ex p Quinn | 35 |
| Issue: Whether the failure to transfer a prisoner to a different prison during a trial was unlawful | |
| R v Home Secretary ex p Higgins | 45 |
| Issue: Whether the Board unlawfully failed to discover the nature of the index offence in relation to an application for parole. | |
| R v Home Secretary ex p Pewter | 48 |
| Issue: Whether an adjudication should have proceeded in light of the medical state of the prisoner | |
| R v Controller, HM YOI Doncaster ex p Gaskin | 53 |
| Issue: Whether a refusal to allow legal representation at an adjudication was lawful | |
| R v Parole Board ex p Derbyshire | 56 |
| Issue: Whether reasons for refusing an application for parole were adequate in light of the failure to mention whether and how account had been taken of the benefits of release. | |
| Clarke v Crew | 59 |
| Issue: Whether the police owed a duty of care to a prisoner committed to prison for 9 days “from his arrest” to ensure that the prison authorities knew the date of arrest. | |
| R v Home Secretary ex p Black | 64 |
| Issue: Whether a disciplinary adjudication should be quashed on the basis of an inadequate inquiry. | |
| R v Home Secretary ex p Glen Fielding | 65 |
| Issue: Whether the policy relating to the issuing of condoms in prison was lawful | |
| R v Home Office ex p A | 69 |
| 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 Home Secretary ex p Bannori-Shah | 74 |
| Issue: Whether a refusal to release on compassionate grounds was irrational. | |
| R v Home Secretary ex p Bannori-Shah | 76 |
| Issue: Whether a refusal to release on compassionate grounds was irrational. | |
| R v Governor of HMP Latchmere House and Parole Board ex p Jarvis | 78 |
| Issue: Whether the transfer of a prisoner and recategorisation to a higher security category was lawful; whether the refusal of parole was lawful. | |
| R v Home Secretary ex p Simms and O’Brien | 82 |
| Issue: The lawfulness of the Home Secretary’s restrictions on visits to prisoners by journalists (which required an undertaking not to use the material obtained). | |
| Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis | 99 |
| Issue: Whether the police owed a duty of care to prevent a prisoner in custody committing suicide; whether the defences of volenti non fit injuria or novus actus interveniens applied; and whether the deceased was contributorily negligent | |
| R v Parole Board ex p Robinson | 118 |
| Issue: Whether a Parole Board lifer panel could reopen the question of risk after an adjournment to put a release package into effect. | |
| Ganusaukas v Lithuania | 124 |
| Issue: Whether the suspension of a parole licence and recall to prison breached Arts 5.1, 5.4 or 6 European Convention. | |
| R v Parole Board and Home Secretary ex p Oyston | 127 |
| Issue: Whether the Parole Board had carried out an appropriate balancing act in determining not to release a prisoner on parole | |
| R v Sharkey | 134 |
| Issue: Whether an order for return to custody could be made by a court in relation to a prisoner recalled to custody by the Home Secretary | |
| R v Parole Board ex p Curley | 138 |
| Issue: Whether a decision to uphold the recall of a life sentence prisoner was reasonable. | |
| R v Home Secretary ex p Blackstock | 146 |
| Issue: The process to be followed when the Home Secretary does not follow a Parole Board recommendation that a life sentence prisoner be moved to open prison conditions | |
| R v Home Secretary ex p Oshin | 149 |
| Issue: The correct approach to the calculation of the early release dates of a prisoner repatriated to the UK under the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons. | |
| Toumia v Evans (Secretary General of the Prison Officers Association) | 153 |
| Issue: Whether locking prisoners in their cells whilst a staff meeting was held which went longer than authorised by the governor might arguably give rise to false imprisonment and/or misfeasance in a public office. | |
| R v Home Secretary and Governor HMP Whatton ex p Allen | 164 |
| Issue: The procedural requirements in relation to the process of release on Home Detention Curfew. | |
| R v Governor of Sudbury Prison ex p Minge | 169 |
| 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 Home Secretary ex p Andrews | 172 |
| Issue: Whether a challenge to the lawfulness of a licence condition should be allowed when a prosecution for breach of the condition was pending. | |
| Robert Kerr v UK | 174 |
| Issue: Whether the recall to prison of a mandatory life sentence prisoner released on licence breached Art 5, 6, 8, 13 or 14 European Convention | |
| R v Governor of HMP Pentonville ex p Lynn | 179 |
| Issue: Whether effect should be given to a Court indication as to when a sentence would begin to run. | |
| Demirtepe v France | 183 |
| Issue: Whether there was a breach of Art 8 in the opening of a prisoner’s correspondence | |
| V v UK; T v UK | 189 |
| Issue: Whether the trials of children charged with murder breached Arts 3 and 6 of the Convention; whether the sentence of detention during Her Majesty’s Pleasure breached Arts 3, 5, and 6 of the Convention. | |
| Connor v Secretary of State for Scotland | 221 |
| Issue: Whether there was a breach of a duty of care towards an officer in placing prisoners together where such placement increased the risk of attack and/or in failing to tell him that the prisoners had been placed together | |
View as
Sort by
Display
per page
