2003
|
|
Cases Reported |
| Benjamin and Wilson v UK | 1 |
| Issue: Whether the arrangements for the release of life sentence prisoners transferred to psychiatric hospital breached Art 5(4) European Convention. | |
| R (Van Hoogstraaten) v Governor, HMP Belmarsh | 6 |
| Issue: Whether a prisoner was entitled to choose an Italian lawyer as his legal adviser. | |
| Mastromatteo v Italy | 11 |
| Issue: Whether Art 2 was breached when a member of the public was killed by prisoners who had absconded from prison leave; whether the procedural requirements of Art 2 had been breached. | |
| R (Hirst) v Parole Board and Home Secretary (Administrative Court) | 22 |
| Issue: Burden of proof in Discretionary Lifer Panels; whether a failure by the Parole Board to agree in advance of a hearing that the burden of proof was not on the prisoner allowed him to commence proceedings seeking a remedy under the Human Rights Act 1998. | |
| R (Hirst) v Parole Board and Home Secretary (Court of Appeal) | 33 |
| Issue: Burden of proof in Discretionary Lifer Panels; whether a failure by the Parole Board to agree in advance of a hearing that the burden of proof was not on the prisoner allowed him to commence proceedings seeking a remedy under the Human Rights Act 1998. | |
| R (Anderson) v Home Secretary | 36 |
| Issue: Whether the Home Secretary has the power to set the tariff of those given a mandatory life sentence. | |
| R v Lichniak; R v Pyrah | 55 |
| 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 (Banks) v Home Secretary | 62 |
| Issue: Whether the procedures for the recall of prisoners on licence was compatible with Arts 5 and 6 European Convention. | |
| R (West) v Parole Board (Administrative Court) | 64 |
| Issue: Whether the recall of a determinate-sentenced prisoner released on licence was a criminal charge or amounted to a determination of a civil right for the purposes of Art 6 European Convention; whether Art 5 was engaged; whether the failure to hold an oral hearing was unfair. | |
| R (West) v Parole Board (Court of Appeal) | 70 |
| Issue: Whether the recall of a determinate-sentenced prisoner released on licence was a criminal charge for the purposes of Art 6 European Convention | |
| R (Rogers) v Home Secretary (Administrative Court) | 80 |
| Issue: Whether, following a finding that disciplinary adjudications breached Art 6 European Convention, the Home Secretary was obliged to remit additional days awarded prior to the Human Rights Act coming into force. | |
| R (Rogers) v Home Secretary (Court of Appeal) | 84 |
| Issue: Whether, following a finding that disciplinary adjudications breached Art 6 European Convention, the Home Secretary was obliged to remit additional days awarded prior to the Human Rights Act coming into force. | |
| R (Mumford) v HM Coroner for Reading and Home Secretary | 89 |
| Issue: Whether the Coroner erred in not allowing a verdict involving neglect to be left the jury in light of the requirements of Art 2 European Convention. | |
| R (CPS) v Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages and Another (Administrative Court) | 93 |
| Issue: Whether the Registrar General should have refused to allow a remand prisoner to marry a prosecution witness, and whether the prison director should have refused to allow the marriage to take place in his prison. | |
| R (CPS) v Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages and Another (Court of Appeal) | 100 |
| Issue: Whether the Registrar General should have refused to allow a remand prisoner to marry a prosecution witness, and whether the prison director should have refused to allow the marriage to take place in his prison. | |
| R (S) v Home Secretary and Parole Board | 108 |
| Issue: Whether a decision to recall a prisoner who had been released on licence but who was detained under s3 Mental Health Act 1983 was lawful; whether the patient was “unlawfully at large” for the purposes of sentence calculation whilst in hospital. | |
| R (S) v Home Secretary | 112 |
| Issue: Whether a recalled prisoner who was detained under s3 Mental Health Act 1983 was “unlawfully at large” until returned to prison for the purposes of sentence calculation. | |
| Benzan v Croatia | 118 |
| Issue: Whether a friendly settlement for an alleged breach of Art 3 should be accepted. | |
| Ploski v Poland | 120 |
| Issue: Whether refusal to allow a prisoner compassionate leave to attend family funerals breached Art 8 European Convention. | |
| Radaj v Poland | 124 |
| Issue: Whether the automatic censorship of correspondence of a remand prisoner with the European Commission of Human Rights, as required by Polish law, breached Art 8 European Convention | |
| R (Howard League for Penal Reform) v Home Secretary | 128 |
| Issue: Whether local authorities duties under the Children Act 1989 apply to children detained in a Young Offender Institution. | |
| Gilbert v Home Secretary | 153 |
| Issue: Whether a refusal to allow a prisoner to transfer temporarily from a Close Supervision Centre for accumulated family visits was lawful. | |
| Waite v UK | 160 |
| Issue: Whether failure to have an oral hearing for a recalled life sentence prisoner breached Art 5(4) of the Convention; whether there was a sufficient connection between the reason for the recall and the original sentence to comply with Art 5(1). | |
| Sheppard v Home Secretary | 171 |
| Issue: Whether a judge had been entitled to find that a prisoner who alleged an assault by prison officers had fractured his own jaw; whether the judge’s actions caused an unfair trial. | |
| R (D) v Home Secretary | 178 |
| Issue: Whether the statutory scheme relating to the release of discretionary life prisoners who had been transferred to hospital was incompatible with Art 5 European Convention. | |
| R (Broom) v Governor, HMP Wakefield and Home Secretary | 187 |
| Issue: Whether the lack of privacy screens around cell toilets and regular cell transfers breached Art 3 European Convention. | |
| R (Lambourne) v HM Deputy Coroner for the District of Avon | 189 |
| Issue: Whether an inquest into a death in prison was adequate. | |
| Walter v Austria | 191 |
| Issue: Whether a friendly settlement for breach of Art 6 by delays in the prison system should be accepted. | |
| Salapa v Poland | 193 |
| Issue: Whether the length of S’s detention on remand breached Arts 5 and 6 European Convention; whether the automatic censorship of correspondence with the European Commission of Human Rights breached Art 8 | |
| Margaret Younger v UK | 204 |
| Issue: Whether Art 2 European Convention was breached on the facts of the case. | |
| R (CD and AD) v Home Secretary | 220 |
| Issue: Whether a decision to exclude a mother from a mother and baby unit was lawful and procedurally fair. | |
| R v David Paul Stocker | 229 |
| Issue: Whether a sentence should be reduced to take account of a period of administrative recall relating to a previous sentence | |
| R (Cannan) v Home Secretary and Governor HMP Full Sutton | 230 |
| Issue: Whether it was lawful to require prior authorisation for legal documents to be handed to or taken from a legal adviser. | |
| Waller and Vale v UK | 235 |
| Issue: Whether there was discriminatory treatment of discretionary life sentence prisoners as they could not apply to have their tariffs reduced on account of progress in custody. | |
| Van der Ven v Netherlands | 240 |
| Issue: Whether a prison’s high security regime, in particular frequent strip-searching, breached Art 3; whether restrictions on visits breached Art 8. | |
| R (Sim) v (1) Parole Board (2) Home Secretary | 256 |
| Issue: The requirements of Art 5 in relation to the continued detention of recalled extended sentence prisoners; the interpretation of s44A Criminal Justice Act 1991; the admissibility of hearsay evidence | |
| R (Sacker) v HM Coroner for West Yorkshire | 273 |
| Issue: Whether Art 2 required a Coroner to allow a jury to consider adding a rider of neglect in relation to a suicide in custody. | |
| Duggan v (1) Governor HMP Full Sutton (2) Home Office | 279 |
| Issue: Whether the arrangements for holding cash taken from prisoners were lawful. | |
| R (Spence) v Home Secretary (Administrative Court) | 286 |
| Issue: Whether the Home Secretary’s decision not to accept the Parole Board’s recommendation as to the period of time until the next review of a post-tariff life sentenced prisoner’s detention was lawful and/or reasonable | |
| R (Spence) v Home Secretary (Court of Appeal) | 290 |
| Issue: Whether the Home Secretary’s decision not to accept the Parole Board’s recommendation as to the period of time until the next review of a post-tariff life sentenced prisoner’s detention was lawful and/or reasonable | |
| R (Clough) v Home Secretary | 296 |
| Issue: Whether the Home Secretary’s decision not to accept the Parole Board’s recommendation as to the period of time until the next review of a post-tariff life sentenced prisoner’s detention was lawful and/or reasonable | |
| R (Middleton) v Home Secretary | 304 |
| Issue: Whether the delay in releasing a mandatory lifer on a Parole Board recommendation was lawful; whether the response to fresh information after a decision to release had been taken was proper. | |
| R (Murray) v Parole Board and Home Secretary | 309 |
| Issue: Whether the interim measures in relation to the review of post-tariff mandatory life sentence prisoners complied with Art 5(4) European Convention; whether a delay of 15 months between reviews was lawful | |
| McGlinchey and Others v UK | 314 |
| Issue: Whether Art 3 was breached when a prisoner died in custody. | |
| R (Smith) v Home Secretary | 328 |
| 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 (Pearson) v Parole Board | 334 |
| Issue: Whether it was proper to receive hearsay at a hearing to determine whether a recalled extended sentence prisoner should be released. | |
| R (Cole, Rowland, Hawkes) v Home Secretary | 342 |
| Issue: Whether a tariff fixed for a murder could be increased following a retrial; whether it was lawful for the Home Secretary to decline to review tariffs in light of proposed legislation. | |
| R (Ayling) v Parole Board | 350 |
| Issue: Whether the Parole Board could depart from the sentencing Judge’s views as to risk; whether the Board refused release on basis of denial of offences alone. | |
| R (Uttley) v Home Secretary (Administrative Court) | 352 |
| Issue: Whether the application of the licence system under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to an offence committed before its enactment breached Art 7 European Convention. | |
| R (Uttley) v Home Secretary (Court of Appeal) | 355 |
| Issue: Whether the application of the licence system under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to an offence committed before its enactment breached Art 7 European Convention. | |
| R (McFetrich) v Home Secretary | 361 |
| Issue: Whether it was unlawful to set the tariff for a mandatory lifer transferred from Scotland to England as if he had been convicted in England; whether a higher tariff breached Art 7 European Convention | |
| R (Martin) v Parole Board | 368 |
| Issue: Whether a decision not to release on parole a determinate sentence prisoner was rational and had taken into account relevant matters; whether the failure to consider a Court of Appeal judgment and expert reports prepared for the appeal was unfair. | |
| R (Brooks) v Parole Board and Home Secretary | 376 |
| Issue: Whether the Parole Board acted lawfully in considering hearsay evidence, acted fairly in not issuing a witness summons and acted fairly in deciding not to direct release. | |
| Easterbrook v UK | 384 |
| Issue: Whether the delay in setting the tariff for a discretionary life sentence prisoner and the failure to have an oral hearing breached Arts 5 and 6 European Convention. | |
| R (Clift) v Home Secretary | 389 |
| Issue: Whether the Home Secretary’s power to decide the release of those serving 15 years or more breached Arts 5 and 14 European Convention. | |
| Rowe and others v Fryers and another | 395 |
| Issue: Whether the Court should order disclosure of transcripts of police interviews with a suspect in subsequent civil proceedings | |
| Lorsé and others v Netherlands | 407 |
| Issue: Whether conditions at a high security institution violated Arts 3 and 8; whether there was an effective remedy for breaches. | |
| R (Bloggs 61) v Home Secretary | 426 |
| Issue: The lawfulness of a decision to remove a police informant from the Protected Witness Unit into the mainstream prison system after he had received assurances from the police that he would remain in the PWU. | |
View as
Sort by
Display
per page
