2005 Volume 2
|
|
Cases Reported |
| R (Bannatyne) v Home Secretary and Independent Adjudicator | 1 |
| Issue: Whether prison disciplinary proceedings should have been held in public | |
| Brown v UK | 10 |
| Issue: Whether the recall of a determinate sentence prisoner breached Arts 5, 6 or 8 European Convention. | |
| R (Smith) v Parole Board, R (West) v Parole Board | 14 |
| Issue: Whether a prisoner recalled to prison for breach of licence was entitled to an oral hearing in front of the Parole Board by virtue of Arts 5 or 6 European Convention and/or common law. | |
| Watkins v Home Office and others | 31 |
| Issue: Whether the tort of misfeasance in a public office was complete without proof of special damage. | |
| R (Szuluk) v (1) Governor, HMP Full Sutton (2) Home Secretary | 42 |
| Issue: Whether a prisoner in a Category A prison had a right to private correspondence with outside medical advisors. | |
| Doerga v Netherlands | 47 |
| Issue: Whether the recording and retaining of D’s telephone conversations was a breach of his Art 8 rights. | |
| Hill v UK | 55 |
| Issue: Whether failure to provide an oral hearing for post-tariff life sentenced prisoner was a breach of Art 5(4); whether such breach provided an enforceable right to compensation under Art 5(5). | |
| Brand v Netherlands | 58 |
| Issue: Whether detention in prison pending a place being found in a secure psychiatric institution breached Art 5 of the European Convention. | |
| Morsink v Netherlands | 72 |
| Issue: Whether detention in prison pending a place being found in a secure psychiatric institution breached Art 5 of the European Convention. | |
| Blackstock v UK (Admissibility) | 85 |
| Issue: Whether Art 5.4 requires that the Parole Board be able to control the categorisation of post-tariff lifers and the timing of reviews; whether the review on the facts was carried out speedily. | |
| Blackstock v UK | 97 |
| Issue: Whether reviews of the detention of a life sentence prisoner were carried out speedily. | |
| R (Day) v Home Secretary | 104 |
| Issue: Whether it was lawful for the Home Secretary to control the timing of reviews by the Parole Board of the detention of post-tariff lifers; whether the delay on the facts was lawful. | |
| Spence v UK | 113 |
| Issue: Whether Art 5 requires that the Parole Board be able to control the timing of reviews of post-tariff mandatory lifers; whether the review on the facts was carried out speedily. | |
| R (Carroll and Al-Hasan) v Home Secretary | 120 |
| Issue: Whether an adjudicator was biased when ruling on the lawfulness of an order | |
| R (Greenfield) v Home Secretary | 129 |
| Issue: Whether a breach of Art 6 in a prison disciplinary adjudication required an award of damages. | |
| R (Girling) v Parole Board and Home Secretary | 136 |
| Issue: Whether the Board’s decision not to release a life sentence prisoner had given insufficient weight to his medical condition, or had followed an erroneous approach as to the need for a release plan; whether the Home Secretary could issue directions to the Board in relation to the release of life sentence prisoners. | |
| R (Ryall) v HM Prison Service | 153 |
| Issue: Whether the policy of monitoring the communications of prisoners subject to a restraining order under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 was lawful. | |
| R (TB) v Home Secretary | 155 |
| Issue: Whether the categorisation of a juvenile detainee as a provisional Category A detainee and his placement in a medical wing were lawful. | |
| R (Palmer) v Home Secretary | 165 |
| Issue: Whether there was a right to make representations prior to a re-categorisation decision; whether the decision was flawed on its facts. | |
| R (Carman) v Home Secretary | 172 |
| Issue: Whether a requirement to reside at a probation hostel was lawful. | |
| R (MJ) v Home Secretary | 181 |
| Issue: Whether it was unlawful to transfer a prisoner in a dispersal prison; the propriety of a decision to maintain his Category A status. | |
| R (Hamblett) v Governor, HMP Frankland | 196 |
| Issue: Whether a refusal to allow enhanced status to a prisoner who denied his guilt was lawful. | |
| R (Taylor) v Governor, HMP Risley | 198 |
| Issue: Whether restricting telephone calls by all prisoners in a prison to a limited number of pre-approved numbers breached Art 8 European Convention. | |
| R (Gleaves) v Home Secretary | 205 |
| Issue: Whether a disciplinary conviction for racist language was proper. | |
| Nilsen v (1) Governor HMP Full Sutton (2) Home Secretary | 210 |
| Issue: Whether the refusal to allow a prisoner to have the transcript of his autobiography breached Art 10 European Convention. | |
| R (Hammond) v Home Secretary | 218 |
| Issue: Whether an oral hearing could be held as part of the process for setting the tariff of an existing mandatory life sentence prisoner. | |
| R (Wright) v Home Secretary | 226 |
| Issue: Whether a mandatory lifer could claim damages for breach of Art 5 European Convention in relation to decisions in the 1990s. | |
| Whitfield, Pewter, Gaskin, Clarke v UK | 236 |
| Issue: Whether Art 6 was breached when additional days were awarded at adjudication hearings where legal representation was denied; whether compensation was available. | |
| R (Tangney and Francis) v Governor, HMP Elmley & Home Secretary | 246 |
| Issue: Whether life sentenced prisoners are entitled to hearings in front of the independent adjudicator when charged with disciplinary offences. | |
| R (Tangney) v Governor, HMP Elmley and Home Secretary | 253 |
| Issue: Whether life sentenced prisoners are entitled to hearings in front of the independent adjudicator when charged with disciplinary offences. | |
| R (Roberts) v Parole Board | 262 |
| Issue: Whether the Parole Board was able to appoint a special advocate to consider sensitive material which was not released to the prisoner’s solicitors in an oral hearing for a mandatory lifer. | |
View as
Sort by
Display
per page
