Faulkner, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice & Anor [2009] EWHC 1507 (Admin) (05 June 2009)

Faulkner, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice & Anor [2009] EWHC 1507 (Admin) (05 June 2009)

There was no breach of Article 5(4) ECHR as the parole review was held within a reasonable interval and the system did not break down; even if there had been a breach, the claimant could not show he would have been released earlier, and in any event, damages would not be awarded given his absconding and the discretionary nature of such relief.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 1507 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Daniel Faulkner; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Justice; Second Defendant: The Parole Board
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Article 5(4) ECHR, Parole Board Reviews, Damages for Unlawful Detention, Judicial Review of Parole Decisions
Public Law Human Rights Law Prison Law Article 5(4) ECHR Parole Board Reviews Damages for Unlawful Detention Judicial Review of Parole Decisions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Faulkner

Claimant

Secretary of State for Justice

First Defendant

The Parole Board

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether delay in parole review breached Article 5(4) ECHR
  2. 2 Whether claimant entitled to damages for alleged breach
  3. 3 Effect of claimant's absconding on entitlement to relief

Ratio Decidendi

There was no breach of Article 5(4) ECHR as the parole review was held within a reasonable interval and the system did not break down; even if there had been a breach, the claimant could not show he would have been released earlier, and in any event, damages would not be awarded given his absconding and the discretionary nature of such relief.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for judicial review and damages dismissed
  • Claimant to pay defendants' costs, subject to section 11 of the Access to Justice Act 1999