The appellants received indeterminate prison sentences comprising (a) a fixed tariff period; and (b) an indeterminate post tariff period. Post tariff detention was to continue until the appellants satisfied the Parole Board that that they were no longer a danger to the public. The appellants, relying upon the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in James v United Kingdom (2012) 56 EHRR 399, claimed that their post tariff detention was unlawful because the Secretary of State had failed to provide them with a reasonable opportunity to progress their rehabilitation and release [1]. In James v United Kingdom, the ECtHR found that a failure properly to progress prisoners towards post tariff release breached their article 5(1) rights to liberty under the European Convention on Human Rights and made their continued detention unlawful [1]. The appellants claimed that the Secretary of State had failed to provide them with a reasonable opportunity to progress their rehabilitation and release: (1) Haney, relying on articles 5 and 14, claimed that he had been transferred to open prison conditions too close to the expiry of his tariff period to enable his immediate release. (2) Kaiyam, Massey and Robinson, relying on article 5, claimed that they had not been able to commence particular rehabilitative treatment programmes within a reasonable time of their tariff period expiring. The Supreme Court (a) unanimously allows Haney and Masseys article 5 appeal, awarding Haney damages of 500 and awarding Massey damages of 600; (b) unanimously dismisses Haneys article 14 appeal and Kaiyams article 5 appeal; and (c) dismisses the article 5 appeal in the case of Robinson by a majority of 4 1 (Lord Mance dissenting). Lord Mance and Lord Hughes give the unanimous judgment in the appeals of Haney, Kaiyam and Massey. Lord Hughes (with whom Lord Neuberger, Lord Toulson and Lord Hodge agree) gives a separate lead judgment in the Robinson appeal. Lord Mance delivers a dissenting judgment. Haney, Kaiyam and Massey Lord Mance and Lord Hughes hold that: (1) The Supreme Court is not bound to follow the decision of the ECtHR in James v United Kingdom. The ECtHRs reasoning that a failure properly to progress prisoners towards post tariff release amounted to a breach of their article 5(1) right to liberty would not be followed. The express wording of article 5(1) or 5(4) did not create any relevant duty to provide prisoners with a reasonable opportunity to progress their rehabilitation and release [18 23], [30 37]. (2) However, the overall scheme of article 5 did impose an implied ancillary duty on the Secretary of State to facilitate prisoners rehabilitation and release. Breach of that duty would not affect the lawfulness of the detention, but would entitle prisoners to damages [38 39]. (3) In respect of the appellants in the present case: (a) Haneys delay in being transferred to open prison conditions had deprived him, contrary to article 5, of a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate that he was no longer a danger to the public, an opportunity which the Secretary of State himself had said that he should have [49 50]. However, there had been no breach of article 14 in discriminating between pre and post tariff prisoners [53 54]. (b) Kaiyams delay in being able to commence various rehabilitative treatment programmes did not breach his article 5 rights. He had been provided with a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate that he was no longer a risk to the public through courses on enhanced thinking, drug awareness and victim awareness but his responses to those programmes had been poor [59 61]. (c) Masseys delay in being able to commence an extended sexual offenders treatment programme until nearly three years after the expiry of his tariff period (and after the Secretary of State had provided for a timetable which was not fulfilled) had deprived him of the reasonable opportunity to demonstrate that he was no longer a danger, in breach of article 5 [68 69]. Robinson Lord Hughes holds that Robinsons delay in being able to commence an extended sexual offenders treatment programme until nearly nine months after the expiry of his tariff period did not breach his article 5 rights. The question was not whether the appellant had been deprived of access to a particular course, but whether he had been given a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate that he was no longer a danger to the public [85], [89 92]. Lord Mance (dissenting) considers that article 5 required that Robinson be given a reasonable degree of access to the extended sexual offenders treatment programme, which he had not been given in the circumstances of the present case [99], [109 111].