Lee v Secretary of State for Justice

Lee v Secretary of State for Justice

The 10-year restriction on applying to cancel an IPP licence is not a disproportionate or unjustified interference with Article 8 rights. The regime provides sufficient flexibility through the possibility of varying or suspending conditions and eventual cancellation, and is justified by the legitimate aim of protecting the public from dangerous offenders. The scheme is proportionate and in accordance with the law.

Parties
Claimant: Lee; Defendant: Secretary of State for Justice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Imprisonment for Public Protection (ipp), Article 8 ECHR, Licence Conditions, Proportionality, Judicial Review
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Imprisonment for Public Protection (ipp) Article 8 ECHR Licence Conditions Proportionality Judicial Review

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

Parties

Lee

Claimant

Secretary of State for Justice

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 31A of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, which prevents an application to cancel an IPP licence within 10 years of release, is incompatible with Article 8 ECHR (right to respect for private life)
  2. 2 Whether the IPP licence regime is disproportionate or unjustified interference with Article 8 rights

Ratio Decidendi

The 10-year restriction on applying to cancel an IPP licence is not a disproportionate or unjustified interference with Article 8 rights. The regime provides sufficient flexibility through the possibility of varying or suspending conditions and eventual cancellation, and is justified by the legitimate aim of protecting the public from dangerous offenders. The scheme is proportionate and in accordance with the law.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Declaration sought by the claimant refused
  • Permission to appeal refused at first instance