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

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

The court found that while there were two relatively short periods of delay attributable to the Secretary of State, these were not systemic but the result of individual errors and muddle, which were acknowledged and apologised for. The delays did not amount to a breach of Article 5(4) ECHR justifying declaratory relief. There was no evidence that the claimant would have been released earlier but for the delays, nor was there sufficient evidence of significant distress or frustration to justify an award of damages under Article 5(5). No relief was appropriate against the Parole Board.

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
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 Delay in Parole Hearings, Attribution of Delay to State Bodies
Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Judicial Review of Parole Process Article 5(4) ECHR – Right to Speedy Review of Detention Damages for Delay in Parole Hearings Attribution of Delay to State Bodies

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 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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the delay in arranging a Parole Board hearing was unlawful and in breach of Article 5(4) ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to damages under Article 5(5) ECHR for distress and frustration caused by the delay
  3. 3 Whether any delay was attributable to the Secretary of State or the Parole Board

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while there were two relatively short periods of delay attributable to the Secretary of State, these were not systemic but the result of individual errors and muddle, which were acknowledged and apologised for. The delays did not amount to a breach of Article 5(4) ECHR justifying declaratory relief. There was no evidence that the claimant would have been released earlier but for the delays, nor was there sufficient evidence of significant distress or frustration to justify an award of damages under Article 5(5). No relief was appropriate against the Parole Board.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • No declaratory relief granted
  • No damages awarded