2001
|
|
Cases Reported |
| Re Peter C | 1 |
| Issue: Whether the refusal of the Home Secretary to accept Parole Board advice under s32(2) Criminal Justice Act 1991 in relation to a recalled prisoner was lawful and/or rational. | |
| R (Akhtar) v Secretary of State for the Home Department | 6 |
| Issue: Whether the Home Secretary could use his powers to recall to prison a prisoner released on licence if a court had ordered the return to prison of the prisoner following conviction for an offence committed on licence. | |
| R (Akhtar (No 2)) v Governor, HMP Newhall; Secretary of State for the Home Department | 10 |
| Issue: The effect of bail granted in the course of judicial review proceedings on the early release provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. | |
| R (Nicholas) v Parole Board | 12 |
| Issue: Whether the Board’s reliance on a breach of a day release licence in declining to grant early release on parole was unreasonable. | |
| R (Scott) v HM Coroner for Inner West London | 17 |
| Issue: Whether the coroner should have left to the jury a verdict involving neglect in the case of a mentally-unwell remand prisoner who hung himself. | |
| R (Bulger) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales | 25 |
| Issue: Whether the father of the victim of a murder committed by 2 juveniles had standing to challenge the tariff fixed by the Home Secretary on the advice of the Lord Chief Justice in respect of the juveniles; whether the tariffs set were unreasonable. | |
| R (Carroll and Al-Hasan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department | 33 |
| Issue: The lawfulness of orders to submit to squat searches; whether prisoners had to be given reasons for an order to squat; whether the searching officers had to know the factual basis for the order. The fairness of adjudication proceedings, including whether Art 6 European Convention was applicable and whether Art 5 European Convention was breached by the award of additional days’ imprisonment. | |
| R (Greenfield) v Secretary of State for the Home Department | 52 |
| Issue: Whether prison disciplinary proceedings are covered by Art 6 European Convention; whether a sentence of additional days’ imprisonment involves a deprivation of liberty under Art 5. | |
| R (1. Carroll and Al-Hasan 2. Greenfield) v Secretary of State for the Home Department | 59 |
| Issue: Whether prison disciplinary proceedings are covered by Art 6 European Convention; the lawfulness of orders to submit to squat searches; whether prisoners had to be given reasons for an order to squat; the fairness of adjudication proceedings | |
| R (Anderson and Taylor) v Secretary of State for the Home Department | 70 |
| Issue: Whether the Home Secretary has the power to fix the tariff of those given a mandatory life sentence. | |
| R (Anderson and Taylor) v Secretary of State for the Home Department | 77 |
| Issue: Whether the Home Secretary has the power to fix the tariff of those given a mandatory life sentence. | |
| Thomas, Johnson, Falconer and Campbell v The Home Office | 92 |
| Issue: Whether it was negligent to allow an association period to go ahead during which 4 black prisoners were attacked by white prisoners; whether there was misfeasance in a public office arising out of racial abuse to the 4 prisoners. | |
| Russell, McNamee, and McCotter v Home Office | 96 |
| Issue: Whether the claimants had been assaulted after an escape attempt had been foiled; whether aggravated or exemplary damages were appropriate. | |
| R (Buck) v Secretary of State for the Home Department | 124 |
| Issue: Whether a disciplinary conviction for drug-taking was correct; whether it has to be shown that the prisoner knowingly took a controlled drug. | |
| R (N) v Governor, HMP Dartmoor | 127 |
| Issue: Whether a spent conviction for an offence against a child could be revealed to social services as part of an assessment of the prisoner under prison service child protection policy. | |
| R (C) v Parole Board | 134 |
| Issue: Whether a decision to refuse parole to an offender who denied his offence was proper. | |
| Dougoz v Greece | 136 |
| Issue: Whether conditions of detention breached Art 3; whether the lack of statutory provisions relating to detention and the lack of court review breached Art 5. | |
| R (Crowe) v Governor, HMP Garth | 143 |
| Issue: Whether a prisoner should use the internal appeal process to challenge a governor’s decision as to categorisation before commencing judicial review proceedings. | |
| R (Ghartey) v Secretary of State for the Home Department | 145 |
| Issue: Whether a long-term prisoner had a legitimate expectation to be treated as a short-term prisoner on the basis of a document describing his sentence as one of less than 4 years. | |
| R (Hirst) v Secretary of State for the Home Department | 147 |
| Issue: The procedure to be followed before a post-tariff discretionary lifer is regressively recategorised. | |
| Thompson v The Home Office | 153 |
| Issue: Whether a finding of negligence in relation to the control of razors at a Young Offender Institution was correct. | |
| R (Wilkes) v Secretary of State for the Home Department | 159 |
| Issue: The reasonableness of a condition imposed in a non-parole licence. | |
| R (MacNeill) v Parole Board | 166 |
| Issue: Whether a period of 2 years between hearings before the Parole Board violated Art 5(4) European Convention in relation to a prisoner detained during Her Majesty’s Pleasure. | |
| R (McAteer) v Secretary of State for the Home Department | 171 |
| Issue: Whether a determinate sentence prisoner who was recalled for breach of licence conditions had a right to an oral hearing in front of the Parole Board. | |
| R (Morris) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Governor HMP Winchester | 172 |
| Issue: Whether the failure by the Secretary of State to follow the post-recall provisions in s39 Criminal Justice Act 1991 invalidated the recall of a prisoner. | |
| R (Ponting) v (1) Governor, HMP Whitemoor and (2) Secretary of State for the Home Department | 175 |
| Issue: Whether refusal to allow a prisoner use of his computer infringed his right of access to the courts. | |
| Keenan v UK | 180 |
| Issue: Whether there were breaches of Arts 2, 3 and 13 from the failure to prevent a prisoner committing suicide. | |
| R (Pearson and Martinez) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Two Electoral Registration Officers; Hirst v The Attorney General | 209 |
| Issue: Whether s3 Representation of the People Act 1983, which prevents serving prisoners from registering as voters or voting, is compatible with Art 3 of the First Protocol and Art 14 European Convention on Human Rights. | |
| R (Pearson and Martinez) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Two Electoral Registration Officers; Hirst v The Attorney General | 218 |
| Issue: Whether s3 Representation of the People Act 1983, which prevents serving prisoners from registering as voters and from voting, is compatible with Art 3 of the First Protocol and Art 14 European Convention on Human Rights. | |
| R (On the Application of Mellor) v Secretary of State for the Home Department | 219 |
| Issue: Whether the Home Secretary’s refusal of a prisoner’s request to provide a sample of semen at his expense for the purpose of artificially inseminating his wife breached Arts 8 and/or 12 European Convention. | |
| R (Sunder) v Secretary of State for the Home Department | 231 |
| Issue: Whether Arts 5 and 6 European Convention applied to decisions of the Category A Committee; whether the decision was unfair and/or irrational | |
| R (Blagden) v Secretary of State for the Home Department | 237 |
| Issue: The procedural rights of a discretionary life sentence prisoner transferred from Category D to Category C conditions; the procedure to be followed in deciding whether to accept a recommendation of the Parole Board that such a prisoner should be in Category D conditions. | |
| Peers v Greece | 245 |
| Issue: Whether the conditions of detention in prison breached Art 3 of the Convention; whether the failure to treat remand prisoners differently breached Art 6; whether interference with correspondence breached Art 8. | |
| R (Kelly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department | 258 |
| Issue: Whether the timetable for a review of an automatic life sentence prisoner by the Parole Board’s Discretionary Lifer Panel was a matter for the Home Secretary. | |
| Orange v Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Police | 263 |
| Issue: Whether there was a negligent failure to prevent a drunken detainee from committing suicide. | |
| R (Lichniak and Pyrah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R v Lichniak and Pyrah | 271 |
| Issue: Whether the imposition of a mandatory life sentence for murder is compatible with Arts 3 and 5 European Convention on Human Rights where there was no risk to the public. | |
| R (Noorkoiv) v (1) Secretary of State for the Home Department, (2) Parole Board | 280 |
| Issue: Whether the holding of a Parole Board review of the continuing detention of a short tariff automatic life sentence prisoner 2 months after tariff expiry breached Art 5(4) European Convention or was unreasonable. | |
| Zinzuwadia v Secretary of State for the Home Department | 283 |
| Issue: Whether the failure to prevent a prisoner committing suicide was negligent. | |
| R (P and Q) v Secretary of State for the Home Department | 287 |
| Issue: The lawfulness of the Home Secretary’s policy as to mother and baby units. | |
| R (P and Q) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another | 297 |
| Issue: The lawfulness of the Home Secretary’s policy as to mother and baby units. | |
| Quaquah v (1) Group 4 and (2) Secretary of State for the Home Department | 318 |
| Issue: The potential liability of the Home Secretary for torts committed by an employee of a private detention centre officer towards an individual detained under the Immigration Act 1971. | |
| R (McCalla) v Parole Board | 331 |
| Issue: Whether a refusal to reconsider a refusal of parole on a change of circumstances was lawful. | |
| R (McManus) v Head of Assisted Prison Visits | 335 |
| Issue: Whether the levels of assistance to families to visit prisoners breached Art 8 European Convention | |
| R (Wright & Another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department | 337 |
| Issue: Whether the Home Secretary would be required to hold a full and independent inquiry into a death in custody despite an inquest having returned a verdict of death by natural causes. | |
| Napier v Scottish Ministers | 347 |
| Issue: Whether interim relief should be granted to a prisoner who argued that the conditions of his detention breached Art 3 European Convention. | |
| R (Williams) v Secretary of State for the Home Department | 351 |
| Issue: Whether the procedure followed in determining the placement in Category A conditions of a post-tariff discretionary life sentence prisoner was adequate to meet the requirements of fairness. | |
| Price v UK | 359 |
| Issue: Whether the conditions of detention of a disabled prisoner breached Art 3 European Convention. | |
| Valasinas v Lithuania | 365 |
| Issue: Whether the conditions of detention in prison, the conduct of a body search, and the failure to investigate complaints made breached Art 3 European Convention; whether interference with correspondence breached Art 8. | |
| Hirst v UK | 383 |
| Issue: Whether delays between Parole Board hearings breached Art 5 European Convention. | |
| R (Hayes) v Secretary of State for the Home Department | 398 |
| Issue: Whether a lawful procedure had been followed in relation to the consideration by the Parole Board of the case of a post-tariff mandatory lifer. | |
| R (Hayes) v Secretary of State for the Home Department | 400 |
| Issue: Whether a lawful procedure had been followed in relation to the consideration by the Parole Board of the case of a post-tariff mandatory lifer. | |
| R (Palmer) v Secretary of State for the Home Department | 401 |
| Issue: Whether the decision to categorise a prisoner provisionally as a Category A High Risk prisoner was lawful. | |
| Re Adamson | 404 |
| Issue: Whether time spent in custody on matters left on the file should count against the sentence imposed for a subsequently discovered offence arising out of investigations prompted by the first offence. | |
View as
Sort by
Display
per page
