A.S., R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
The Secretary of State's decision of 8 May 2009 was flawed due to failure to consider up-to-date medical evidence, failure to give adequate reasons, and breach of procedural legitimate expectation; the decision must be quashed and reconsidered.
Source-derived case information.
- Parties
- Claimant: A. S.; Defendant: Secretary of State for Justice
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 08 June 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Judgment on Application for Compassionate Release and Article 3 ECHR Claim
- Outcome
- Decision of 8 May 2009 quashed; application for compassionate release to be reconsidered.
- Legal Topics
- Compassionate Release, Indeterminate Sentences, Article 3 ECHR, Procedural Legitimate Expectation, Judicial Review
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
A. S.
Claimant
Secretary of State for Justice
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Application for Compassionate Release and Article 3 ECHR Claim
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Secretary of State failed to consider relevant medical evidence in refusing compassionate release
- 2 Whether the decision breached procedural legitimate expectation
- 3 Whether continued detention breached Article 3 ECHR
Ratio Decidendi
The Secretary of State's decision of 8 May 2009 was flawed due to failure to consider up-to-date medical evidence, failure to give adequate reasons, and breach of procedural legitimate expectation; the decision must be quashed and reconsidered.
Court Disposition
Decision of 8 May 2009 quashed; application for compassionate release to be reconsidered.
Orders
- Defendant to reconsider application under section 30 by 5.00 pm on 8 June 2009.
- Submissions on costs to be made by email by 12 noon on 8 June 2009.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment