Hirst, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor [2005] EWHC 1480 (Admin) (21 June 2005)

Hirst, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor [2005] EWHC 1480 (Admin) (21 June 2005)

Section 32 recall scheme is compatible with Article 5 ECHR; however, there was a breach of Article 5(2) due to failure to provide prompt and adequate reasons for recall, and a breach of Article 5(4) due to delay in providing the dossier necessary to initiate judicial review; damages are awarded for the Article 5(4) breach only.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 1480 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: John Hirst; First Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department; Second Defendant: The Parole Board
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Oral Hearing
Outcome
Claimant partially succeeds; breaches of Article 5(2) and 5(4) found; damages awarded for Article 5(4) breach only.
Legal Topics
Article 5 ECHR, Recall of Life Prisoners, Prompt Provision of Reasons, Speedy Judicial Review, Damages for Breach of Rights
Human Rights Prison Law Administrative Law Article 5 ECHR Recall of Life Prisoners Prompt Provision of Reasons Speedy Judicial Review Damages for Breach of Rights

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Hirst

Claimant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

First Defendant

The Parole Board

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Oral Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Compatibility of recall scheme under section 32(1) Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 with Article 5 ECHR
  2. 2 Promptness and adequacy of reasons for recall under Article 5(2)
  3. 3 Speediness of judicial review under Article 5(4)

Ratio Decidendi

Section 32 recall scheme is compatible with Article 5 ECHR; however, there was a breach of Article 5(2) due to failure to provide prompt and adequate reasons for recall, and a breach of Article 5(4) due to delay in providing the dossier necessary to initiate judicial review; damages are awarded for the Article 5(4) breach only.

Court Disposition

Claimant partially succeeds; breaches of Article 5(2) and 5(4) found; damages awarded for Article 5(4) breach only.

Orders

  • Declaration of breach of Article 5(2) ECHR (failure to provide prompt and adequate reasons for recall)
  • Declaration of breach of Article 5(4) ECHR (delay in enabling representations)