Source: https://southsideonlinepublishing.com/en/2003-3
Timestamp: 2020-04-01 10:40:50
Document Index: 446812112

Matched Legal Cases: ['Arts 5', 'Art 6', 'Art 5', 'Art 6', 'Art 6', 'Art 2', 'Art 3', 'Art 8', 'Art 8', 'Art 5', 'Art 5', 'Art 3', 'Art 6', 'Arts 5', 'Art 8', 'Art 2', 'Art 3', 'Art 8', 'Art 5', 'Art 3', 'Art 7', 'Art 7', 'Arts 5', 'Arts 3']

Benjamin and Wilson v UK 1
R (Van Hoogstraaten) v Governor, HMP Belmarsh 6
Issue: Whether a prisoner was entitled to choose an Italian lawyer as his legal adviser.
Mastromatteo v Italy 11
R (Hirst) v Parole Board and Home Secretary (Administrative Court) 22
Issue: Burden of proof in Discretionary Lifer Panels; whether a failure by the Parole Board to agree in advance of a hearing that the burden of proof was not on the prisoner allowed him to commence proceedings seeking a remedy under the Human Rights Act 1998.
R (Hirst) v Parole Board and Home Secretary (Court of Appeal) 33
R (Anderson) v Home Secretary 36
Issue: Whether the Home Secretary has the power to set the tariff of those given a mandatory life sentence.
R v Lichniak; R v Pyrah 55
R (Banks) v Home Secretary 62
Issue: Whether the procedures for the recall of prisoners on licence was compatible with Arts 5 and 6 European Convention.
R (West) v Parole Board (Administrative Court) 64
Issue: Whether the recall of a determinate-sentenced prisoner released on licence was a criminal charge or amounted to a determination of a civil right for the purposes of Art 6 European Convention; whether Art 5 was engaged; whether the failure to hold an oral hearing was unfair.
R (West) v Parole Board (Court of Appeal) 70
Issue: Whether the recall of a determinate-sentenced prisoner released on licence was a criminal charge for the purposes of Art 6 European Convention
R (Rogers) v Home Secretary (Administrative Court) 80
Issue: Whether, following a finding that disciplinary adjudications breached Art 6 European Convention, the Home Secretary was obliged to remit additional days awarded prior to the Human Rights Act coming into force.
R (Rogers) v Home Secretary (Court of Appeal) 84
R (Mumford) v HM Coroner for Reading and Home Secretary 89
Issue: Whether the Coroner erred in not allowing a verdict involving neglect to be left the jury in light of the requirements of Art 2 European Convention.
R (CPS) v Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages and Another (Administrative Court) 93
Issue: Whether the Registrar General should have refused to allow a remand prisoner to marry a prosecution witness, and whether the prison director should have refused to allow the marriage to take place in his prison.
R (CPS) v Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages and Another (Court of Appeal) 100
R (S) v Home Secretary and Parole Board 108
Issue: Whether a decision to recall a prisoner who had been released on licence but who was detained under s3 Mental Health Act 1983 was lawful; whether the patient was “unlawfully at large” for the purposes of sentence calculation whilst in hospital.
R (S) v Home Secretary 112
Benzan v Croatia 118
Issue: Whether a friendly settlement for an alleged breach of Art 3 should be accepted.
Ploski v Poland 120
Issue: Whether refusal to allow a prisoner compassionate leave to attend family funerals breached Art 8 European Convention.
Radaj v Poland 124
Issue: Whether the automatic censorship of correspondence of a remand prisoner with the European Commission of Human Rights, as required by Polish law, breached Art 8 European Convention
R (Howard League for Penal Reform) v Home Secretary 128
Issue: Whether local authorities duties under the Children Act 1989 apply to children detained in a Young Offender Institution.
Gilbert v Home Secretary 153
Issue: Whether a refusal to allow a prisoner to transfer temporarily from a Close Supervision Centre for accumulated family visits was lawful.
Waite v UK 160
Issue: Whether failure to have an oral hearing for a recalled life sentence prisoner breached Art 5(4) of the Convention; whether there was a sufficient connection between the reason for the recall and the original sentence to comply with Art 5(1).
Sheppard v Home Secretary 171
Issue: Whether a judge had been entitled to find that a prisoner who alleged an assault by prison officers had fractured his own jaw; whether the judge’s actions caused an unfair trial.
R (D) v Home Secretary 178
R (Broom) v Governor, HMP Wakefield and Home Secretary 187
Issue: Whether the lack of privacy screens around cell toilets and regular cell transfers breached Art 3 European Convention.
R (Lambourne) v HM Deputy Coroner for the District of Avon 189
Walter v Austria 191
Issue: Whether a friendly settlement for breach of Art 6 by delays in the prison system should be accepted.
Salapa v Poland 193
Issue: Whether the length of S’s detention on remand breached Arts 5 and 6 European Convention; whether the automatic censorship of correspondence with the European Commission of Human Rights breached Art 8
Margaret Younger v UK 204
Issue: Whether Art 2 European Convention was breached on the facts of the case.
R (CD and AD) v Home Secretary 220
Issue: Whether a decision to exclude a mother from a mother and baby unit was lawful and procedurally fair.
R v David Paul Stocker 229
Issue: Whether a sentence should be reduced to take account of a period of administrative recall relating to a previous sentence
R (Cannan) v Home Secretary and Governor HMP Full Sutton 230
Waller and Vale v UK 235
Issue: Whether there was discriminatory treatment of discretionary life sentence prisoners as they could not apply to have their tariffs reduced on account of progress in custody.
Van der Ven v Netherlands 240
Issue: Whether a prison’s high security regime, in particular frequent strip-searching, breached Art 3; whether restrictions on visits breached Art 8.
R (Sim) v (1) Parole Board (2) Home Secretary 256
R (Sacker) v HM Coroner for West Yorkshire 273
Duggan v (1) Governor HMP Full Sutton (2) Home Office 279
R (Spence) v Home Secretary (Administrative Court) 286
Issue: Whether the Home Secretary’s decision not to accept the Parole Board’s recommendation as to the period of time until the next review of a post-tariff life sentenced prisoner’s detention was lawful and/or reasonable
R (Spence) v Home Secretary (Court of Appeal) 290
R (Clough) v Home Secretary 296
R (Middleton) v Home Secretary 304
Issue: Whether the delay in releasing a mandatory lifer on a Parole Board recommendation was lawful; whether the response to fresh information after a decision to release had been taken was proper.
R (Murray) v Parole Board and Home Secretary 309
Issue: Whether the interim measures in relation to the review of post-tariff mandatory life sentence prisoners complied with Art 5(4) European Convention; whether a delay of 15 months between reviews was lawful
McGlinchey and Others v UK 314
Issue: Whether Art 3 was breached when a prisoner died in custody.
R (Smith) v Home Secretary 328
R (Pearson) v Parole Board 334
Issue: Whether it was proper to receive hearsay at a hearing to determine whether a recalled extended sentence prisoner should be released.
R (Cole, Rowland, Hawkes) v Home Secretary 342
Issue: Whether a tariff fixed for a murder could be increased following a retrial; whether it was lawful for the Home Secretary to decline to review tariffs in light of proposed legislation.
R (Ayling) v Parole Board 350
Issue: Whether the Parole Board could depart from the sentencing Judge’s views as to risk; whether the Board refused release on basis of denial of offences alone.
R (Uttley) v Home Secretary (Administrative Court) 352
Issue: Whether the application of the licence system under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to an offence committed before its enactment breached Art 7 European Convention.
R (Uttley) v Home Secretary (Court of Appeal) 355
R (McFetrich) v Home Secretary 361
Issue: Whether it was unlawful to set the tariff for a mandatory lifer transferred from Scotland to England as if he had been convicted in England; whether a higher tariff breached Art 7 European Convention
R (Martin) v Parole Board 368
Issue: Whether a decision not to release on parole a determinate sentence prisoner was rational and had taken into account relevant matters; whether the failure to consider a Court of Appeal judgment and expert reports prepared for the appeal was unfair.
R (Brooks) v Parole Board and Home Secretary 376
Easterbrook v UK 384
Issue: Whether the delay in setting the tariff for a discretionary life sentence prisoner and the failure to have an oral hearing breached Arts 5 and 6 European Convention.
R (Clift) v Home Secretary 389
Rowe and others v Fryers and another 395
Lorsé and others v Netherlands 407
Issue: Whether conditions at a high security institution violated Arts 3 and 8; whether there was an effective remedy for breaches.
R (Bloggs 61) v Home Secretary 426
Benzan v Croatia
Easterbrook v UK
Gilbert v Home Secretary
Lorsé and others v Netherlands
Ploski v Poland
R (Anderson) v Home Secretary
R (Ayling) v Parole Board