Bernard, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor [2005] EWHC 452 (Admin) (08 March 2005)

Bernard, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor [2005] EWHC 452 (Admin) (08 March 2005)

The court held that while there were two short periods of delay attributable to the first defendant, these were not systemic, were acknowledged and apologised for, and did not justify declaratory relief or damages. The claimant failed to provide convincing evidence of significant distress or frustration caused by the delays. No relief was appropriate against the Parole Board, and the threshold for a wasted costs order was not met.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 452 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Anthony Bernard; First Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department; Second Defendant: The Parole Board
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review of Parole Process, Article 5(4) ECHR – Right to Speedy Review of Detention, Damages for Breach of Convention Rights, Delay in Parole Hearings, Declaratory Relief, Wasted Costs
Public Law Human Rights Law Prison Law Judicial Review of Parole Process Article 5(4) ECHR – Right to Speedy Review of Detention Damages for Breach of Convention Rights Delay in Parole Hearings Declaratory Relief +1 more

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Bernard

Claimant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

First Defendant

The Parole Board

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether delay in arranging a Parole Board hearing breached Article 5(4) ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to declaratory relief for unlawful delay
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to damages for distress and frustration under Article 5(5) ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that while there were two short periods of delay attributable to the first defendant, these were not systemic, were acknowledged and apologised for, and did not justify declaratory relief or damages. The claimant failed to provide convincing evidence of significant distress or frustration caused by the delays. No relief was appropriate against the Parole Board, and the threshold for a wasted costs order was not met.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed.

Orders

  • No declaratory relief granted.
  • No damages awarded to the claimant.