2011
|
|
Cases Reported |
| M v Germany | 1 |
| Issue: Whether a statutory extension of the maximum period of preventive detention breached Arts 5 and/or 7 ECHR. | |
| Grosskopf v Germany | 23 |
| Issue: Whether placement in preventive detention breached Art 5. | |
| Schummer v Germany | 30 |
| Issue: Whether a statutory extension of the maximum period of preventive detention breached Arts 3, 5 and/or 7 ECHR. | |
| Kallweit v Germany | 43 |
| Issue: Whether a statutory extension of the maximum period of preventive detention breached Arts 5 and/or 7 ECHR; the impact of Art 46. | |
| Mautes v Germany | 55 |
| Issue: Whether a statutory extension of the maximum period of preventive detention breached Arts 5 and/or 7 ECHR; the impact of Art 46. | |
| Haidn v Germany | 65 |
| Issue: Whether the retrospective imposition of preventive detention at the end of a prison sentence breached Arts 3 and/or 5 ECHR. | |
| R (Gill) v Secretary of State for Justice | 82 |
| Issue: Whether the failure to make reasonable adjustments to offending behaviour courses to allow a prisoner who had learning difficulties to access them was a breach of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and/or the public law duty to comply with policy statements as to making such adjustments. | |
| Stellato v Ministry of Justice | 97 |
| Issue: Whether the calculation of an award for false imprisonment was correct; whether detention for breach of bail pending appeal was lawful; the impact of a further conviction and sentence of imprisonment after the period of unlawful detention. | |
| Stellato v Ministry of Justice | 104 |
| Issue: Whether the calculation of an award for false imprisonment was correct; whether detention for breach of bail pending appeal was lawful. | |
| R (Denis Roberts) v Secretary of State for Justice | 109 |
| Issue: Whether the failure to allow a category A prisoner to continue to attend outside medical treatment was lawful; whether a challenge to a change of policy was academic. | |
| R (Benjamin Alcock) v Parole Board | 113 |
| Issue: Whether the delay in listing a hearing before the Parole Board for a post-tariff lifer breached Art 5(4) ECHR; whether a hearing should be ordered; whether damages were appropriate. | |
| R (Mark Wells) v Parole Board | 119 |
| Issue: Whether the delay in listing a hearing before the Parole Board for a post-tariff lifer breached Art 5(4) ECHR; whether a hearing should be ordered; whether damages were appropriate. | |
| Tomašić and Others v Croatia | 125 |
| Issue: Whether the authorities’ failure to protect lives from acts of a man with a personality disorder breached the substantive obligations under Art 2 ECHR; whether the procedural obligation under Art 2 was breached by the failure to conduct an effective investigation into state responsibility. | |
| R (AB) v (1) Secretary of State for Justice and (2) Governor HMP Manchester | 139 |
| Issue: Whether the failure to move from the male prison estate a pre-operative transgender female prisoner after she had been granted a certificate under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 was in breach of Arts 8 and/or 14 ECHR and/or irrational. | |
| R (Paul Woods) v (1) Secretary of State for Justice, (2) Parole Board | 153 |
| Issue: Whether decisions not to release a recalled prisoner were lawful, including in light of the fact that the recall decision was unlawful. | |
| Petrov v Bulgaria | 158 |
| Issue: Whether there were breaches of Arts 8, 13 and 14 ECHR from (i) the blanket monitoring of a prisoner’s correspondence and (ii) the refusal to allow him to have telephone communication with his long-term partner, in contrast to what was permitted for married couples. | |
| Szuluk v UK | 160 |
| Issue: Whether monitoring by the prison medical officer of correspondence between a prisoner and an external medical specialist breached Art 8 ECHR. | |
| R (Salami) v Parole Board; Robinson v Secretary of State for Justice | 168 |
| Issue: Whether the extension of the licence period under a sentence of imprisonment or the period of time a prisoner could serve if recalled breached Art 6 ECHR | |
| R (London Secure Services Ltd) v Youth Justice Board; R (JV) v (1) Youth Justice Board (2) Secretary of State for Justice; R (T) v Youth Justice Board | 177 |
| Issue: Whether decisions to change the placement arrangements for young detainees were unlawful. | |
| R (RJC) v (1) Secretary of State for Justice and (2) National Offender Management Service | 211 |
| Issue: Whether a parole licence condition requiring a sex offender to submit to polygraph sessions was unlawful. | |
| R (Falconer) v Secretary of State for Justice | 215 |
| Issue: The lawfulness of a failure to downgrade the security status of a prisoner who objected to an assessment/treatment programme; whether he had been entitled to an oral hearing. | |
| R (Matthews) v HMP Swaleside | 222 |
| Issue: Whether a prisoner was wrongly prohibited from submitting an academic assignment proposing research into domestic violence against women. | |
| R (Ellerton) v Secretary of State for Justice | 226 |
| Issue: Whether a prisoner who was mistakenly released on licence was entitled to have the period of release counted as time served on his sentence. | |
| R (David Walker) v Secretary of State for Justice | 232 |
| Issue: Whether a prisoner serving imprisonment for public protection was improperly refused leave to visit his dying father at home. | |
| R (Parratt) v Secretary of State for Justice | 236 |
| Issue: Whether time custody on remand was part of the tariff of a sentence of imprisonment for public protection for determining whether to hold a pre-tariff expiry review to consider transfer to open conditions. | |
| R (Michael Guittard) v Secretary of State for Justice | 243 |
| Issue: Whether the failure to consider the transfer to open conditions of a prisoner serving imprisonment for public protection prior to a review by the Parole Board was unlawful. | |
| R (Allen) v Parole Board | 251 |
| Issue: Whether there was adequate proof of alleged domestic violence to justify declining parole; whether licence conditions had been breached. | |
| R (McMillan) v Parole Board | 254 |
| Issue: Whether the Parole Board had unlawfully failed to grant an oral hearing when considering early release for an extended sentence prisoner. | |
| R (Jason Gregson) v Parole Board | 261 |
| Issue: Whether a decision not to release a prisoner on licence was unlawful in light of closed material. | |
| Round and Dunn v R | 269 |
| Issue: Whether sentencing judges should construct consecutive sentences so as to minimise the time until eligibility for release on home detention curfew. | |
| R (Denzil Walker) v Secretary of State for Justice | 278 |
| Issue: Whether a life prisoner suffering serious health issues was unreasonably placed in a high secure prison. | |
| R (Oakes) v (1) Secretary of State for Justice, (2) National Probation Service and (3) Parole Board | 287 |
| Issue: Whether decisions to recall a prisoner who denied committing an alleged assault whilst on licence, and to refuse his re-release, were flawed; whether the Parole Board ought to have granted an oral hearing. | |
| R (Johnson) v Secretary of State for Justice | 295 |
| Issue: Whether setting a parole review 14–15 months after an automatic life sentence prisoner’s last review, without providing reasons to justify the length of time, was unlawful. | |
| R (O’Dowd) v National Probation Service London | 299 |
| Issue: Whether the refusal to allow a prisoner on licence to appear on a reality television show was lawful. | |
| Enea v Italy | 304 |
| Issue: Whether a secure prison regime breached Art 3 ECHR in light of a prisoner’s health problems; whether restrictions on contacts and correspondence breached Art 8; whether the absence of or delays in court proceedings breached Art 6. | |
| R (Gray) v Secretary of State for Justice and Parole Board | 327 |
| Issue: Whether delays in reviews of detention breached Art 5(4) ECHR; whether the Parole Board applied the wrong test for a prisoner detained for public protection. | |
| R (KB (a child, by his litigation friend LW)) v Secretary of State for Justice | 338 |
| Issue: Whether a disciplinary system outside the YOI Rules was ultra vires; whether the Incentives and Earned Privileges Policy as operated was ultra vires. | |
| R (Monir Saleh) v Parole Board and Secretary of State for Justice | 351 |
| Issue: Whether a failure to hold an oral hearing when considering the case of a recalled determinate sentence prisoner was unlawful. | |
| R (Baldauf) v Secretary of State for the Home Department | 356 |
| Issue: Whether time serving a sentence in France ought to count towards a UK sentence. | |
| R (McDonagh) v Secretary of State for Justice | 359 |
| Issue: Whether the decision to recall a prisoner for breach of a licence condition “to be well behaved” was lawful; the meaning of “well behaved”. | |
| Orobator v Governor, HMP Holloway and Secretary of State for Justice | 365 |
| Issue: Whether a prisoner transferred from Laos and subject to a life sentence for drugs offences was being detained arbitrarily in light of concerns about the trial process there; the proper minimum term to be served. | |
| R (Chester) v Governor of HMP Wakefield | 385 |
| Issue: Whether a policy of opening legal correspondence to check for illicit enclosures if the envelopes were hand-written was ultra vires or disproportionate. | |
| R (Bell) v Secretary of State for Justice | 395 |
| Issue: Whether a decision to change the categorisation of a prisoner from category C to category B was irrational or unlawful. | |
| R (Degainis) v Secretary of State for Justice | 401 |
| Issue: Whether a recalled prisoner was entitled to damages under Art 5(5) ECHR for delay in holding a parole hearing. | |
| R (Eddie Gyamfi) v Secretary of State for Justice | 404 |
| Issue: Whether a decision to retain category C status for a prisoner subject to deportation proceedings who had previously been granted category D status was unlawful. | |
| R (Hoole) v Parole Board | 409 |
| Issue: Whether the scheduling of a prisoner’s parole review ought to have been prioritised in light of personal circumstances relating to family illness. | |
| R (Elton Dsane) v Secretary of State for Justice | 417 |
| Issue: Whether a decision to change the security categorisation of a prisoner from category D to category C was lawful. | |
| Paul Gibson v Secretary of State for Justice | 421 |
| Issue: Whether the detention of a recalled prisoner was lawful and could be challenged by habeas corpus. | |
| R (Equality & Human Rights Commission) v Secretary of State for Justice | 425 |
| Issue: Whether there was a failure to have “due regard” to statutory anti-discrimination obligations in concluding an agreement as to the removal of foreign prisoners. | |
| R (RJ) v Parole Board | 433 |
| Issue: Whether failure of the Parole Board to recommend the release of a recalled prisoner who was suspected of involvement in a further offence but had not been charged was lawful. | |
| R (Raymond Francis) v Parole Board and Secretary of State for Justice | 440 |
| Issue: Whether the failure of the Parole Board to hold an oral hearing to consider the release of a recalled determinate sentence prisoner was lawful. | |
| Costello v R | 446 |
| Issue: Whether a sentencing court could increase the sentence of a prisoner who offended on licence where the otherwise appropriate sentence would not add to the period to be served. | |
| Davison v UK | 455 |
| Issue: Whether it breached Arts 8 or 14 ECHR that phone calls in prison were more expensive than in the community. | |
| Re Robert Torrens Knight | 461 |
| Issue: Whether suspension of the license of a life sentence prisoner after he was convicted of offences of assault, which conviction was subject to appeal, breached Art 5(1), breached a legitimate expectation or was unreasonable. | |
| Dennis Andrew Nilsen v UK | 467 |
| Issue: Whether refusing to allow a prisoner to have the transcript of his autobiography breached Art 10 ECHR. | |
| R (Earl Francis) v West Midlands Probation Board | 478 |
| Issue: Whether refusal to transfer a prisoner to a different probation service on the basis of risk was based on an error of law; whether it breached Art 8 ECHR. | |
| Silber J | 486 |
| Issue: Issue: Whether refusal to transfer a prisoner to a different probation service on the basis of risk was based on an error of law; whether it breached Art 8 ECHR. | |
View as
Sort by
Display
per page
