Bristow, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice & Anor [2013] EWHC 3094 (Admin) (16 October 2013)

Bristow, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice & Anor [2013] EWHC 3094 (Admin) (16 October 2013)

The claimant was not in an analogous position to prisoners eligible for parole (sexual or violent offenders), and the calculation of his automatic release date based on the balance of the sentence remaining after transfer was consistent with the statutory regime. The difference in treatment was justified by the legislative changes and the need to uphold the integrity of the original foreign sentence. There was no unlawful discrimination under Article 14 ECHR.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 3094 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Steven Bristow; 1st Defendant: Secretary of State for Justice; 2nd Defendant: National Offender Management Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Prisoner Repatriation, Early Release Provisions, Discrimination Under ECHR Article 14, Application of Foreign Sentences, Parole Eligibility
Public Law Human Rights Law Criminal Law Prisoner Repatriation Early Release Provisions Discrimination Under ECHR Article 14 Application of Foreign Sentences Parole Eligibility

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

Parties

Steven Bristow

Claimant

Secretary of State for Justice

1st Defendant

National Offender Management Service

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was discriminated against under Article 14 ECHR when compared to other prisoners regarding early release provisions after repatriation
  2. 2 Whether the calculation of automatic release date for repatriated prisoners is justified under domestic law

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was not in an analogous position to prisoners eligible for parole (sexual or violent offenders), and the calculation of his automatic release date based on the balance of the sentence remaining after transfer was consistent with the statutory regime. The difference in treatment was justified by the legislative changes and the need to uphold the integrity of the original foreign sentence. There was no unlawful discrimination under Article 14 ECHR.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Application for judicial review is refused