Smith v Secretary of State for Justice Parole Board

Smith v Secretary of State for Justice Parole Board

Both the Secretary of State and the Parole Board breached their obligations under Article 5(4) ECHR by failing to ensure a speedy review of the claimant's detention; the Secretary of State caused severe delays in providing necessary coursework and reports, and the Parole Board failed to actively case manage the claimant's case.

Parties
Claimant: Craig Smith; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Justice; Second Defendant: Parole Board
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Expedited Rolled Up Hearing
Outcome
Application for judicial review allowed; declarations granted.
Legal Topics
Article 5(4) ECHR, Imprisonment for Public Protection (ipp), Parole Board Duties, Judicial Review, Delay in Parole Process
Human Rights Law Prison Law Administrative Law Article 5(4) ECHR Imprisonment for Public Protection (ipp) Parole Board Duties Judicial Review Delay in Parole Process

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Craig Smith

Claimant

Secretary of State for Justice

First Defendant

Parole Board

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Expedited Rolled Up Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State for Justice breached Article 5(4) ECHR by failing to provide the claimant with a prompt end of tariff review and necessary coursework for parole consideration
  2. 2 Whether the Parole Board breached Article 5(4) ECHR by failing to actively manage the claimant's case to ensure a speedy review

Ratio Decidendi

Both the Secretary of State and the Parole Board breached their obligations under Article 5(4) ECHR by failing to ensure a speedy review of the claimant's detention; the Secretary of State caused severe delays in providing necessary coursework and reports, and the Parole Board failed to actively case manage the claimant's case.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review allowed; declarations granted.

Orders

  • Declaration that the Secretary of State failed to comply with Article 5(4) ECHR obligations due to severe delays in providing essential coursework and reports.
  • Declaration that the Parole Board failed to comply with Article 5(4) ECHR obligations by not actively case managing the claimant's case.