2006 Volume 2
|
|
Cases Reported |
| Mathew v Netherlands | 1 |
| Issue: Whether the conditions of and treatment in detention breached Art 3 European Convention | |
| Bastone v Italy | 26 |
| Issue: Whether the conditions of detention breached Arts 3 or 8 European Convention | |
| Öcalan v Turkey | 31 |
| Issue: Whether the imposition of the death penalty following an unfair trial breached Arts 2 or 3 European Convention; whether the conditions of detention breached Art 3. | |
| Becciev v Moldova | 47 |
| Issue: Whether the conditions of detention breached Art 3 European Convention | |
| Sarban v Moldova | 55 |
| Issue: Whether the conditions of detention and/or the failure to provide medical assistance breached Art 3 European Convention; whether there was a breach of Art 8 in relation to legal communications. | |
| Baginsky v Poland | 68 |
| Issue: Whether restrictions on family visits breached Art 8 | |
| Khudoyorov v Russia | 73 |
| Issue: Whether the conditions of detention and transport to court breached Art 3 European Convention. | |
| Alver v Estonia | 83 |
| Issue: Whether conditions of detention breached Art 3 European Convention | |
| R v D | 95 |
| Issue: Whether a sentence of detention for public protection was required. | |
| R v Lang and Others | 98 |
| Issue: Guidance on the application of the provisions relating to dangerous offenders under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 | |
| R v S and Others | 119 |
| Issue: When does the extension period of an extended sentence under the dangerous offender provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 commence; various other procedural issues relating to the dangerous offender provisions. | |
| R v Shaffi | 133 |
| Issue: Whether the offender was dangerous for the purposes of the Criminal Justice Act 2003; whether a life sentence was required. | |
| R v Kevin Robson | 136 |
| Issue: The point at which age is determined for the purposes of the provisions for sentencing dangerous offenders under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 | |
| R v O’Brien and others | 142 |
| Issue: The correct approach to making a sentence of imprisonment or detention for public protection consecutive to another such sentence or to a period of return to custody for committing a further offence before the end of an existing sentence. | |
| R v Brown and Butterworth | 152 |
| Issue: The lawfulness and propriety of combining an extended sentence with a concurrent determinate sentence, and extended sentences with a single extension period applied to two custodial periods were less than 12 months each. | |
| R v Johnson and Others | 159 |
| Issue: Whether sentences of imprisonment for public protection were proper; further guidance on the regime for sentencing dangerous offenders under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. | |
| R (Wyles) v Parole Board | 171 |
| Issue: Whether the failure to release a recalled life sentence prisoner was rational or proportionate | |
| R (McKenzie) v Governor, HMP Wakefield | 176 |
| Issue: Whether a regime of night-time cell checks breached Arts 3 and/or 8 European Convention | |
| R (G) v Home Secretary | 180 |
| Issue: Whether the removal of a prisoner from a Protected Witness Unit breached Art 2 ECHR; whether the decision to maintain his Category A categorisation was lawful. | |
| R (G) v Home Secretary | 189 |
| Issue: Whether a the decision to maintain a prisoner’s Category A categorisation was lawful. | |
| In re McClean | 193 |
| Issue: Whether there was a burden of proof, and if so on whom it lay, in relation to a precondition for release that a life sentence prisoner not be a danger to the public if released immediately; whether the use of intelligence information not revealed to the prisoner except in gist form meant that the proceedings were unfair when the decision-maker expressly averred that the material was not relied upon in reaching a decision adverse to the prisoner. | |
| R (Girling) v Parole Board and Home Secretary | 215 |
| Issue: Whether the Home Secretary could issue directions to the Board in relation to the release of life sentence prisoners; whether challenges to the Board’s decision not to release a life sentence prisoner should proceed in light of his death. | |
| Demirtepe v France | 223 |
| Issue: Whether there was a breach of Art 8 in the opening of a prisoner’s confidential mail. | |
| Matwiejczuk v Poland | 225 |
| Issue: Whether censorship of correspondence breached Art 8 ECHR | |
| Mianowski v Poland | 230 |
| Issue: Whether censorship of correspondence breached Art 8 ECHR | |
| Drozdowski v Poland | 234 |
| Issue: Whether censorship of correspondence with the Court breached Arts 8 and 34 ECHR | |
| Kwiek v Poland | 236 |
| Issue: Whether censorship of correspondence breached Art 8 ECHR | |
| John Francis v Home Office (and others) | 240 |
| Issue: Whether the conduct of the prison in relation to correspondence breached Arts 8 and/or 10 ECHR; whether there was misfeasance in a public office. | |
| Howard Woodin v Home Office | 252 |
| Issue: Whether the conduct of the prison in relation to correspondence breached Arts 8 and/or 10 ECHR; whether there was misfeasance in a public office. | |
View as
Sort by
Display
per page
