Source: https://southsideonlinepublishing.com/en/2010-volume-2
Timestamp: 2020-02-24 07:17:18
Document Index: 633370066

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art 3', 'Art 3', 'Art 3', 'Art 13', 'Art 46', 'Art 3', 'Arts 2', 'Art 13', 'Art 5', 'Art 5', 'Art 5', 'Art 5', 'Art 5', 'Art 8', 'Art 3', 'Art 5', 'Art 6', 'Art 5', 'Art 5', 'Art 5', 'Arts 3', 'Art 3', 'Arts 3', 'Art 3', 'Art 34', 'Art 8', 'Art 5', 'Art 5', 'Arts 3', 'Art 5']

Southside Online Publishing. 2010 Volume 2
R (Chester) v Secretary of State for Justice and Wakefield Metropolitan District Council 1
Issue: Whether s8 European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 could be read so as to allow serving prisoners to vote to comply with Art 3 of Protocol 1 ECHR; whether a declaration of incompatibility should be granted in relation to s8 or s3 Representation of the People Act 1983; whether any statutory amendment had to enfranchise post-tariff lifer prisoners.
Frodl v Austria 15
Issue: Whether the disenfranchisement of those sentenced to more than 1 year in prison breached Art 3 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR.
Greens and MT v UK 22
Issue: Whether Art 3 of Protocol No 1 to the ECHR was breached by the failure to allow serving prisoners to vote; whether there was a failure to provide an effective remedy as required by Art 13; the appropriate remedy; whether the Court should adopt the pilot judgment procedure under Art 46.
R (Chester) v Secretary of State for Justice and Wakefield Metropolitan District Council 40
Issue: Whether s8 European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 and s3 Representation of the People Act 1983 could be read so as to require a judicial decision before any serving prisoners was disenfranchised, in order to comply with Art 3 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR; whether a declaration of incompatibility should be granted; whether any statutory amendment had to require a judicial decision before disenfranchisement.
Rodić and 3 Others v Bosnia and Herzegovina 47
Issue: Whether placing war criminals in a prison largely populated by prisoners of the same ethnicity as their victims breached Arts 2 and/or 3 ECHR; whether there was an adequate domestic remedy for the purposes of Art 13 ECHR.
R (Mehmet) v Secretary of State for Justice 62
Issue: Whether the delay in the preparation of a report for the Parole Board in relation to a post-tariff lifer was unlawful.
R (Faulkner) v Secretary of State for Justice and Parole Board 68
Issue: Whether the delay in the preparation of reports for the Parole Board in relation to a post-tariff lifer breached Art 5(4) ECHR; whether a delay in listing the hearing breached Art 5(4); whether damages were necessary, and the effect of the fact that the prisoner had absconded.
R (Betteridge) v Parole Board 75
Issue: Whether the delay in the preparation of reports for the Parole Board in relation to a post-tariff lifer breached Art 5(4) ECHR; whether a delay in listing the hearing breached Art 5(4); whether damages were necessary.
R (Pennington) v Parole Board 81
Issue: Whether a delay in listing a hearing for a post-tariff lifer and in communicating a decision to release him breached Art 5(4) ECHR.
R (Coll, Walmsley, Walmsley) v Secretary of State for Justice 87
Issue: Whether a decision to return a prisoner from Northern Ireland to England was unreasonable, in breach of a legitimate expectation, in breach of natural justice, or in breach of Art 8 ECHR.
R (AS) v Secretary of State for Justice 91
Issue: Whether a refusal of compassionate release was irrational and/or procedurally unfair; whether it breached Art 3 ECHR.
R (Kenealy) v Secretary of State for Justice 102
Issue: Whether a decision not to accept a recommendation as to the downgrading of a category A prisoner was rational.
R (Anthony Harrison) v Secretary of State for Justice 108
Issue: Whether a delay between hearings before the Parole Board for a post-tariff lifer of longer than 12 months was reasonable.
R (Hall) v First Secretary of State 114
Issue: Whether a decision to reject a Parole Board recommendation for transfer to open conditions in the case of a post-tariff lifer was lawful.
R (Nicholls) v Secretary of State for Justice 118
Issue: Whether a decision to reject a local board recommendation that a post-tariff life prisoner be downgraded from category A to category B conditions was rational.
The Prison Officers Association v Iqbal 123
Issue: Whether a prisoner confined in his cell during industrial action was falsely imprisoned by the striking prison officers; the appropriate quantum.
McCafferty’s Application 139
Issue: Whether a decision to recall a prisoner was unlawful; whether the lack of a decision by the Commissioner who advised the Secretary of State in relation to recalled prisoners breached the speediness requirement of Art 5(4) ECHR; whether the Commissioner was independent and impartial; whether the use of closed information was unfair.
R (Poku) v Secretary of State for Justice and Parole Board 142
Issue: Whether the failure to reconsider the early release of a prisoner on the basis that statutory amendments caused the release of co-defendants earlier than would have occurred at the time of the sentence was unlawful; whether the Board could take account of this matter; the requirements of Art 6 ECHR in the situation.
R (Goodall) v GSL UK Ltd 147
Issue: Whether a challenge to a decision to recategorise a prisoner could succeed in light of contradictory information as to whether he had been recategorised.
Darren Hart’s Application 149
Issue: Whether decisions to remove a prisoner from association and to continue segregation in reliance on security information was procedurally fair.
R (Kai Salter) v (1) Secretary of State for Justice and (2) Parole Board 156
Issue: Whether holding the oral hearing of an application for release by an indeterminate sentence prisoner 3 months after tariff expiry breached Art 5(4) ECHR; whether the Board applied the wrong test in law or did not have adequate evidence to uphold detention; whether a failure to recommend a transfer to open conditions was irrational; whether an 18 month gap until the next review breached Art 5(4).
R (John Cannan) v Governor, HMP Sutton 166
Issue: Whether it was unlawful to refuse to allow a prisoner to be placed on enhanced status under the privileges regime because he denied his guilt and so declined to attend offending behaviour courses.
R (David Lawson) v Secretary of State for Justice 175
Issue: Whether declarations as to breaches of Art 5(4) ECHR and the common law should be granted in relation to delays in the provision of information to the Parole Board and access to an offending behaviour course.
R (Stephen Willcox) v Secretary of State for Justice 179
Issue: Whether the continued enforcement of a lengthy determinate sentence imposed for drugs offences in Thailand, in which the amounts involved meant that there was an irrebuttable presumption that the offence was of possession for the purposes of distribution, breached Arts 3 or 5 ECHR.
Kochetkov v Estonia 198
Issue: Whether conditions of detention breached Art 3 ECHR; whether there was an effective domestic remedy; whether financial compensation was required as just satisfaction.
R (Peter Edmonds) v Parole Board 206
Issue: Whether a decision to reject a view supported by expert evidence that an offence was not sexually motivated was adequately reasoned and lawful.
R (Rowen) v Governor, HMP Kirkham and Another 210
Issue: Whether decisions to refuse release on Home Detention Curfew and to recategorise a prisoner from Category D to Category C were lawful; whether the use of handcuffs during hospitalisation arguably breached Arts 3 and/or 8 ECHR.
R (Bryan Cox) v Governor, HMP Bristol 217
Issue: Whether a refusal to recategorise a prisoner who denied his offences was adequately reasoned.
R (P) v Secretary of State for Justice 221
R (O’Sullivan) v Parole Board 235
Issue: Whether a decision not to direct release or recommend transfer to open conditions for a post-tariff lifer was rational or adequately reasoned in light of the support in favour of a positive move.
Grori v Albania 239
Issue: Whether a failure to provide timely medical treatment violated Art 3 ECHR; whether a failure to abide by an interim measure under r39 Rules of Court breached Art 34 ECHR.
R (S) v Secretary of State for Justice 251
Issue: Whether a decision not to follow a prison recommendation to downgrade a prisoner from Category A to Category B was rational or adequately reasoned; whether there should have been an oral hearing before the recommendation was rejected.
R (Mohammed Ali) v Director of High Security 263
Issue: Whether the decision to maintain the high escapte risk classification of a category A prisoner was reached unfairly; whether it was unreasonable or a disproportionate breach of Art 8 ECHR; whether adequate reasons had been given.
R (Nolan) v Parole Board and Secretary of State for Justice 270
Issue: Whether a claim to quash decisions not to release could be amended to seek damages for breach of Art 5 ECHR and/or false imprisonment.
R (Allan Manhire) v Secretary of State for Justice, Governor of HMP Lindholme 275
Issue: Whether a decision to change the categorisation of a prisoner from D to C was rational or inconsistent with the decision to grant him category D status.
Felinski v Poland 280
R (David Gunn) v Secretary of State for Justice and Nottinghamshire Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements Board 281
R (Boswell) v Parole Board and Secretary of State for Justice 289
Issue: Whether the delay in holding a Parole Board hearing for a post-tariff lifer breached Art 5(4) ECHR; whether any remedy should be granted; the approach to such claims.
R (AN) v Secretary of State for Justice 294
Issue: Whether the detention in a single cell of a prisoner with PTSD breached or created a real and immediate risk of breaching Arts 3 and/or 8 ECHR.
R (Bektas) v Secretary of State for Justice; Probation Service 311
Issue: Whether recall from licence was irrational because it was not for a fixed term; whether Art 5(1) ECHR was breached because the incident leading to the recall was of a different nature from the offence.
R (Young) v Secretary of State for Justice 319
Issue: Whether a prisoner sentenced when the Criminal Justice Act 1991 was in force was entitled to release under its provisions after recall despite statutory amendments; the proper construction of transitional provisions in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.
R (Spicer) v Secretary of State for Justice 325
Issue: Whether a decision to retain a life prisoner in closed conditions pending the completion of an offending-behaviour course not available in the near future was rational, inconsistent with a previous decision or reached following an unfair process.
R (George Low) v Independent Adjudicator 329
Issue: Whether an adjudication was procedurally unfair as the Independent Adjudicator met with witnesses in advance of the hearing and declined to consider evidence from the prisoner’s cell-mate.
Darren Hart’s Application
Felinski v Poland
Frodl v Austria
Greens and MT v UK
Grori v Albania
Kochetkov v Estonia
McCafferty’s Application
R (Allan Manhire) v Secretary of State for Justice, Governor of HMP Lindholme
R (AN) v Secretary of State for Justice
R (Anthony Harrison) v Secretary of State for Justice
R (AS) v Secretary of State for Justice
R (Bektas) v Secretary of State for Justice; Probation Service