Source: http://echr.ketse.com/doc/67385.01-en-20031016/view/
Timestamp: 2017-08-21 14:00:27
Document Index: 529058516

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3', 'in fine', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 1', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 4', '§ 5', '§ 82', '§ 5', '§ 2']

WYNNE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (No. 2) About Project
Mr P. Kûris,
6. Neither party filed further observations. The Chamber decided, after consulting the parties, that no hearing on the merits was required (Rule 59 § 3 in fine).
21. Article 5 § 4 of the Convention provides:
23. The Government accepted that in Stafford the Court found a violation of Article 5 § 4 on the basis that the applicant's continued detention under a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for murder was not reviewed by a body with a power to release or with a procedure containing the necessary judicial safeguards. They submitted, however, that the applicant's case could be distinguished on the grounds that Stafford had been detained on the basis of the risk of further non-violent offending, while the applicant's continued detention was justified on the basis of the risk of danger to the public. Further, the Parole Board had recommended Stafford's release, whereas it has not recommended the release of the applicant nor his transfer to open conditions.
24. The Court recalls that in Stafford (cited above) it found in respect of a mandatory life prisoner sentenced for murder that, after the expiry of the tariff, which was the punishment element of the sentence, continued detention depended on elements of risk and dangerousness that could change with the course of time. Article 5 § 4 therefore required that he should be able periodically to challenge the continuing legality of his detention in an appropriate procedure.
26. The Government did not dispute that the lawfulness of the applicant's continued detention was not reviewed by a body with the power to order release or with a procedure containing the necessary judicial safeguards as required by Article 5 § 4. Insofar as they referred to the fact that the applicant in Stafford had been re-detained due to the likelihood of further non-violent offending rather than any risk of violence, this element was relevant rather to the Court's finding of insufficient causal connection for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 (a) between the original conviction and the subsequent re-detention and is not a material ground of distinction concerning this applicant's complaints under Article 5 § 4. Similarly, the fact that the Parole Board has never in fact recommended this applicant's release does not deprive him of the right to have a review by a body offering the requisite guarantees.
27. The Court concludes that there has been in that respect a violation of Article 5 § 4.
28. Article 5 § 5 of the Convention provides:
29. The applicant submitted that he had further been denied an enforceable right to compensation as provided by Article 5 § 5 in respect of any breaches of the other provisions of Article 5.
31. The Court has found above a violation of Article 5 § 4 in that the applicant did not receive a review of the lawfulness of his detention in accordance with the requirements of that provision. No possibility of obtaining compensation existed at the relevant time in domestic law in respect of that breach of the Convention. The applicability of Article 5 § 5 is not dependent on a domestic finding of unlawfulness or proof that but for the breach the person would have been released (see Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 October 1990, Series A no. 190-A, § 82, and the authorities cited therein).
32. There has, accordingly, been a violation of Article 5 § 5.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 October 2003 pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
WYNNE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (no. 2) JUDGMENT