Hirst, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor

Hirst, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor

Section 32 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 is compatible with Article 5 ECHR in principle; however, there was a breach of Article 5(2) as reasons for recall were not given promptly, and a breach of Article 5(4) due to delay in providing the dossier necessary to initiate the review process. The remainder of the process was conducted speedily and no further breach occurred. Damages are awarded for the Article 5(4) breach but not for the Article 5(2) breach.

Parties
Claimant: John Hirst; 1st Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department; 2nd Defendant: The Parole Board
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim allowed in part
Legal Topics
Article 5 ECHR, Recall to Prison, Parole Board Procedure, Damages for Breach of Convention Rights
Human Rights Law Criminal Law Administrative Law Article 5 ECHR Recall to Prison Parole Board Procedure Damages for Breach of Convention 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Hirst

Claimant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

1st Defendant

The Parole Board

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 32(1) of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 is incompatible with Article 5 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether reasons for recall were given promptly as required by Article 5(2) ECHR
  3. 3 Whether there was undue delay in the process contrary to Article 5(4) ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

Section 32 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 is compatible with Article 5 ECHR in principle; however, there was a breach of Article 5(2) as reasons for recall were not given promptly, and a breach of Article 5(4) due to delay in providing the dossier necessary to initiate the review process. The remainder of the process was conducted speedily and no further breach occurred. Damages are awarded for the Article 5(4) breach but not for the Article 5(2) breach.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part

Orders

  • Declaration of breach of Article 5(2) ECHR (failure to give prompt reasons)
  • Declaration of breach of Article 5(4) ECHR (delay in process)