PROCEDURE

The case was referred to the Court on 8 December 1994 by the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission“) and on 23 December 1994 by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“the Government“), within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention. It originated in an application (no. 23389/94) against the United Kingdom lodged with the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) on 25 January 1994 by a British citizen, Mr Prem Singh. The Commission’s request referred to Articles 44 and 48 (art. 44, art. 48) and to the declaration whereby the United Kingdom recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46); the Government’s application referred to Article 48 (art. 48). The object of the request and of the application was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Article 5 para. 4 (art. 5-4) of the Convention.

In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33 para. 3 (d) of Rules of Court A, the applicant stated that he wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyer who would represent him (Rule 30).

The President of the Court decided that in the interests of the proper administration of justice this case and the case of Hussain v. the United Kingdom (no. 55/1994/502/584) should be heard by the same Chamber (Rule 21 para. 6) and that a joint hearing should be held. The Chamber to be constituted included ex officio Sir John Freeland, the elected judge of British nationality (Article 43 of the Convention) (art. 43), and Mr R. Ryssdal, the President of the Court (Rule 21 para. 3 (b)). On 27 January 1995, in the presence of the Registrar, the President drew by lot the names of the other seven members, namely Mr F. Gölcüklü, Mr R. Macdonald, Mr A. Spielmann, Mr N. Valticos, Mrs E. Palm, Mr F. Bigi and Mr P. Jambrek (Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 4) (art. 43).

As President of the Chamber (Rule 21 para. 5), Mr Ryssdal, acting through the Registrar, consulted the Agent of the Government, the applicant’s lawyer and the Delegate of the Commission on the organisation of the proceedings (Rules 37 para. 1 and 38). Pursuant to the order made in consequence, the Registrar received the Government’s memorial on 13 April 1995 and the applicant’s memorial on 3 May. The Secretary to the Commission informed the Registrar that the Delegate would submit his observations at the hearing.

In accordance with the President’s decision, the hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 27 September 1995. The Court had held a preparatory meeting beforehand. There appeared before the Court: (a) for the Government Mr I. Christie, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Agent, Mr D. Pannick QC, Mr M. Shaw, Barrister-at-Law, Counsel, Mr H. Carter, Mr H. Bayne, Mr R. Harrington, Home Office, Advisers; (b) for the Commission Mr N. Bratza, Delegate; (c) for the applicant Mr E. Fitzgerald QC, Mr J. Cooper, Barrister-at-Law, Counsel, Mr R. King, Solicitor. The Court heard addresses by Mr Bratza, Mr Fitzgerald and Mr Pannick.

AS TO THE FACTS

I. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

Mr Prem Singh was born in 1957 and is currently resident in Wakefield, West Yorkshire.

On 19 February 1973, the applicant - then aged 15 - was convicted at Leeds Crown Court of the murder of a 72-year-old woman. He had broken into her home, strangled her, cut her throat and had sexual intercourse with her at around the time of her death. Mr Singh received a mandatory sentence of detention “during Her Majesty’s pleasure“ pursuant to section 53 (1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (as amended) (see paragraph 29 below). Its effect was to render the applicant “liable to be detained in such a place and under such conditions as the Secretary of State [for the Home Department] may direct“.

In October 1990, having served the punitive part of his sentence (“tariff“ - see paragraph 33 below), Mr Singh was released on licence.

On 11 March 1991 the applicant was arrested and interviewed at Southmead police station, Bristol, in connection with a number of alleged offences involving deception, and one of using threatening behaviour. He denied the allegations.

On 12 March 1991 the Parole Board considered Mr Singh’s case, and on 21 March 1991 his life licence was revoked by the Secretary of State on its recommendation. On 21 March 1991 the applicant received a formal notice of the reasons for this decision, which he was entitled to by virtue of section 62 (3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (see paragraph 43 below). It informed him that the Secretary of State had revoked his licence in the light of: “(i) Reports indicating that you had lied to and misledyour supervising officers and avoided telling them of avariety of significant events following your release onlicence. (ii) Your arrest and subsequent appearances beforeBristol Magistrates on several criminal charges includingfraud and using threatening behaviour, set against thecircumstances surrounding the offence for which you weregiven a life sentence in 1973, make it impossible for theSecretary of State to be satisfied that your continuedpresence in the community did not constitute a risk tothe public.“

On 27 August 1991, having complained to the Avon Probation Service about its recommendation, Mr Singh received a more detailed explanation of his recall in a letter from the chief probation officer. The reason given for his recall was not the alleged offences (which were a matter for the court), but rather his failure to provide accurate information about his circumstances to his supervising probation officer. The letter cited specifically his failure to inform her about the purchase of a motor vehicle; getting a job and giving false information to his employers about his age and character; having a relationship and not telling his girlfriend all about his background; and falling into arrears with his rent.

Mr Singh denied the accuracy of most of these allegations, and asked the Parole Board to review the merits of the revocation of his licence. Under section 62 (4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (now section 39 (4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 - see paragraph 43 below), the Parole Board was empowered at this stage to take a binding decision for Mr Singh’s immediate release.

The Parole Board considered the applicant’s case on 27 August and 19 December 1991. It had before it a number of reports from the probation service and the police, none of which was disclosed to the applicant. On 19 December 1991 the Board decided against recommending Mr Singh’s immediate release. He was not told the reasons for this decision.

On 2 March 1992 the criminal charges against Mr Singh (see paragraph 9 above) were dismissed because the prosecution had presented the indictment out of time. Mr Singh asked for his case to be reconsidered in the light of this development, and the Secretary of State accordingly referred it back to the Parole Board, under the procedure set out in section 61 (1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (see paragraph 34 below). On 30 July 1992 the Board again declined to recommend Mr Singh’s release.

The applicant then sought judicial review (see paragraph 47 below) of the two decisions of the Parole Board of 19 December 1991 and 30 July 1992. On 20 April 1993 the Divisional Court quashed the Parole Board’s decision of 19 December 1991 on the ground that there had been a breach of natural justice because of the Board’s failure to disclose to Mr Singh all the reports before it. The court held that the applicant was entitled to a fresh consideration by the Parole Board under the terms of section 39 (4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, at which the Board would be empowered to order (not merely to recommend) his release (see paragraph 43 below). Lord Justice Evans found, inter alia, that: “[Mr Singh’s] status is that of a person whose continueddetention can only be justified if the test ofdangerousness, meaning an unacceptable risk of physicaldanger to the life or limb of the public, is satisfied“(R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, exparte Prem Singh, unreported, transcript pp. 26F-27B) He further commented that the disclosed facts “scarcely seem able to support a positive answer to [this question]“.

As a result of the Divisional Court’s decision, Mr Singh received a complete file of the documents which were before the Parole Board. This included a number of detailed probation reports alleging deception of his supervising officers by Mr Singh, and also several hundred pages of witness statements obtained by the police in connection with the criminal charges which had been dismissed (see paragraphs 9 and 14 above).

With the help of his solicitor, Mr Singh made written representations to the Parole Board. He denied the allegations contained in the letter from the chief probation officer that he had deceived his supervising probation officer (see paragraph 11 above) and supported his case with witness statements from his girlfriend and landlady.

On 18 June 1993 the Parole Board considered Mr Singh’s case. He was not permitted to be present at the review and had no opportunity to give oral evidence or to question those who had made allegations against him. The Board decided not to recommend release, and gave the following reasons: “The Panel accepted that Mr Singh’s representationsanswered some matters which were of concern to hisprobation officer. However, there was a lack of opennessin his dealings with the Probation Service. The Panelalso considered that the conduct which led to thecriminal charges indicated a serious kind ofdeceptiveness. His behaviour under supervision led thePanel to conclude that the nature of his personality andbehaviour had not changed significantly since theoriginal offence at the age of 15. His failure to complywith the discipline of licence supervision, bearing inmind the original offence, gives rise to considerableconcern.“

Mr Singh applied for judicial review of this decision, but he withdrew his application on or about 7 March 1994 because he had been offered an early review of his case by the Parole Board.

In June 1994 the Parole Board reconsidered Mr Singh’s case in accordance with section 35 (2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (see paragraph 35 below). Mr Singh entered detailed representations and the file before the Board was disclosed to him; it contained recent reports from probation officers, from a psychologist working with Mr Singh and from the Local Review Committee (see paragraph 46 below). All the reports which made a specific recommendation were in favour of the applicant’s release as soon as possible via a pre-release hostel.

As the applicant was informed on 21 July 1994 the Parole Board unanimously recommended his release subject to six months in a pre-release employment scheme. The reasons given were as follows: “On the evidence presented to [the panel], theyconsidered Prem Singh no longer constituted a danger tolife or limb of committing further life threateningoffences to justify his continued detention since hisrecall in March 1991.“

The applicant was also informed on 21 July 1994 that the Secretary of State was “not prepared to accept this recommendation and [did not agree] to [the applicant’s] release“. The Secretary of State so decided in exercise of his statutory powers (see paragraph 43 below).

By a communication of 8 September 1994 the applicant was given the reasons for the Secretary of State’s decision. These were that Mr Singh had misled the probation service after his release in October 1990 and had appeared before the magistrates on several criminal charges, although these had subsequently been dismissed on technical grounds. Thus, he had been recalled to prison “following serious breaches of the trust placed in [him] as a life licensee“. The Secretary of State was unable to assess accurately whether he was still a threat to the public, because he had spent the three and a quarter years since his recall in a closed prison. He considered that Mr Singh’s relationship with the probation service needed to be tested in the “more challenging environment of an open prison“. For these reasons, he believed that Mr Singh should be transferred to an open prison for further testing. His next formal review by the Parole Board would begin in October 1995.

Mr Singh applied for judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision. On 16 March 1995 the Divisional Court quashed the Secretary of State’s decision and ordered him to reconsider it. The court found, inter alia, that the correct test to be applied was whether Mr Singh constituted a danger to the “life or limb“ of the public, and that the reasoning process of the Secretary of State had been flawed because he had not properly explained how the findings he had made related to the test of dangerousness (R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Prem Singh (no. 2), unreported).

In September 1995 Mr Singh joined a pre-release employment scheme. His provisional date for release is 18 March 1996.