Knights & Anor v Parole Board of England & Wales & Anor

Knights & Anor v Parole Board of England & Wales & Anor

The claimants' detention was not arbitrary or disproportionate under Article 5 ECHR as the causal link between sentence and detention was maintained, and there was no breach of the ancillary duty to provide rehabilitation opportunities. Delay in TO's parole review constituted a breach of Article 5(4) ECHR, justifying an award of damages. Changes in sentencing law did not render the claimants' detention discriminatory or arbitrary under Article 14, nor did the length of detention breach Article 3.

Parties
Claimant: James Knights; Claimant: Terence Patrick O’Brien; Defendant: Parole Board of England & Wales; Defendant: Secretary of State for Justice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
TO's claim partially succeeds; JK's claim dismissed; other claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Imprisonment for Public Protection (ipp), Article 5 ECHR, Article 3 ECHR, Article 14 ECHR, Judicial Review, Parole Board Procedures, Discrimination, Sentencing, Delay in Release, Rehabilitation Courses
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Human Rights Imprisonment for Public Protection (ipp) Article 5 ECHR Article 3 ECHR Article 14 ECHR Judicial Review +5 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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Knights

Claimant

Terence Patrick O’Brien

Claimant

Parole Board of England & Wales

Defendant

Secretary of State for Justice

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the detention of the claimants under pre-July 2008 IPP sentences was arbitrary or disproportionate under Article 5 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether lack of access to rehabilitation courses breached Article 5 or 5(4) ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the delay in parole review breached Article 5(4) ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' detention was not arbitrary or disproportionate under Article 5 ECHR as the causal link between sentence and detention was maintained, and there was no breach of the ancillary duty to provide rehabilitation opportunities. Delay in TO's parole review constituted a breach of Article 5(4) ECHR, justifying an award of damages. Changes in sentencing law did not render the claimants' detention discriminatory or arbitrary under Article 14, nor did the length of detention breach Article 3.

Court Disposition

TO's claim partially succeeds; JK's claim dismissed; other claims dismissed.

Orders

  • Award of £300 damages to TO against the Secretary of State for delay in parole review
  • All other claims dismissed