Lee & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice

Lee & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice

The continued detention of both claimants did not breach Article 5(1) ECHR because, on the evidence, it could not be said that the causal link between the original sentence and their detention had been broken; the Parole Board could still assess their dangerousness. However, in the case of Wells, there was a continuing breach of Article 5(4) due to failure to provide him with the opportunity to attend necessary courses post-declaration, impeding a speedy review.

Parties
Claimant: Jeffrey Lee; Claimant: Nicholas Wells; Defendant: Secretary of State for Justice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Claims under Article 5(1) dismissed for both claimants; claim under Article 5(4) upheld for Wells; permission to appeal granted for both claimants; no order as to costs; public funding assessment ordered.
Legal Topics
Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection (ipp), Article 5 European Convention on Human Rights, Parole Board Review, Unlawful Detention
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Prison Law Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection (ipp) Article 5 European Convention on Human Rights Parole Board Review Unlawful Detention

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jeffrey Lee

Claimant

Nicholas Wells

Claimant

Secretary of State for Justice

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether continued detention of IPP prisoners with short tariffs is unlawful under Article 5(1) ECHR
  2. 2 Whether failure to provide courses and reviews breaches Article 5(4) ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the causal link between original sentence and continued detention has been broken

Ratio Decidendi

The continued detention of both claimants did not breach Article 5(1) ECHR because, on the evidence, it could not be said that the causal link between the original sentence and their detention had been broken; the Parole Board could still assess their dangerousness. However, in the case of Wells, there was a continuing breach of Article 5(4) due to failure to provide him with the opportunity to attend necessary courses post-declaration, impeding a speedy review.

Court Disposition

Claims under Article 5(1) dismissed for both claimants; claim under Article 5(4) upheld for Wells; permission to appeal granted for both claimants; no order as to costs; public funding assessment ordered.

Orders

  • Declaration of breach of Article 5(4) ECHR in the case of Wells
  • Permission to appeal granted for both Lee and Wells