Sturnham, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Justice

Sturnham, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Justice

The Parole Board applied the correct statutory test for release under Section 28(6) of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, and did not unlawfully apply a gloss or incorrect standard. However, the claimant's right to a speedy hearing under Article 5.4 ECHR was breached due to administrative delay by the Secretary of State, justifying a declaration and a modest award of damages for anxiety and distress.

Parties
Claimant: The Queen on the Application of Sturnham; First Defendant: Parole Board; Second Defendant: Secretary of State for Justice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Claim partly allowed
Legal Topics
Parole Board Decisions, Imprisonment for Public Protection, Article 5 ECHR (right to Liberty), Judicial Review, Damages for Breach of Convention Rights
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Parole Board Decisions Imprisonment for Public Protection Article 5 ECHR (right to Liberty) Judicial Review 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen on the Application of Sturnham

Claimant

Parole Board

First Defendant

Secretary of State for Justice

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Parole Board applied the correct statutory test for release under Section 28(6) of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 to a prisoner sentenced under Section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether the Parole Board impermissibly applied a 'gloss' to the statutory test
  3. 3 Whether there was a breach of the claimant's right to a speedy hearing under Article 5.4 ECHR due to delay in the Parole Board review

Ratio Decidendi

The Parole Board applied the correct statutory test for release under Section 28(6) of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, and did not unlawfully apply a gloss or incorrect standard. However, the claimant's right to a speedy hearing under Article 5.4 ECHR was breached due to administrative delay by the Secretary of State, justifying a declaration and a modest award of damages for anxiety and distress.

Court Disposition

Claim partly allowed

Orders

  • Declaration that the claimant's rights under Article 5.4 ECHR were breached due to delay in Parole Board review
  • Award of £300 damages to the claimant for anxiety and distress caused by the delay, payable by the Secretary of State