PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 19365/02) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a United Kingdom national, Mr Robert Edward Hill (“the applicant”), on 11 March 2002.

The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Mr S. Creighton, a solicitor practising in London. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms E. Willmott of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London.

The applicant, serving a sentence of mandatory life imprisonment, alleged that the Parole Board did not provide the guarantees and procedures required by Article 5 § 4 when examining whether he should be released and that he had no enforceable right to compensation for any breach of his rights as required by Article 5 § 5.

The application was allocated to the Fourth Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1.

By a decision of 23 September 2003, the Court declared the remainder of application admissible.

The applicant filed observations on just satisfaction and the Government replied (Rule 59 § 1).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1959 and is serving a sentence of life imprisonment in HM Prison Doncaster.

The applicant was convicted in or around 1981 for the murder of an acquaintance. He was sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment, and his tariff (the minimum period of imprisonment required to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence) was set at 12 years.

At the time of the applicant's latest Parole Board review in 2001, he was detained in HM Prison Wymott as a “Category C” prisoner (prisoners being given a security category classification ranging from Category A (highest risk) to Category D (suitable for open conditions)). The Parole Board recommended that the applicant should be transferred to open conditions, and that his detention should be reviewed after two years. By letter dated 6 July 2001 the Secretary of State informed the Prison Service that he did not accept the Parole Board's recommendation for transfer to open conditions, and that the next review should begin after 12 months. In the letter to the applicant which accompanied the decision it was stated that: “... [t]he Secretary of State attaches particular weight to the psychologist's report, it has highlighted in some detail, the need for further exploration of your insight into, and responsibility for, the index offence and the apparent lack of empathy towards the victim.”

In June 2001 the applicant was transferred to HM Prison Manchester. He claimed that he did not receive notification of the parole decision until sometime after 13 September 2001. The Government stated that a copy of the decision letter was sent to the applicant on 6 July 2001 and a copy to the solicitors then acting for the applicant on 7 August 2001. When the applicant changed his solicitors in September 2001, the authorities sent a copy of the decision to the new solicitors.

The applicant stated that he wanted to seek judicial review of the decision, but was unable to find a solicitor who was prepared to act on his behalf. His then solicitors gave advice that judicial review stood little prospect of success as the reports recommending a move to open conditions had been slightly ambiguous, there were a number of very unfavourable reports and the Secretary of State had given extensive reasons for rejecting the recommended move.

The applicant's first Parole Board oral hearing under new arrangements was scheduled for November 2003. At the applicant's request, it was deferred until May 2004 to allow the applicant time to complete certain courses identified in the reports for the Parole Board review.