Sturnham v Secretary of State for Justice & Anor (Rev 1)

Sturnham v Secretary of State for Justice & Anor (Rev 1)

The correct test for release under s.28(6)(b) Crime Sentences Act 1997 is whether it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner be confined, and this applies uniformly to all life prisoners, including those sentenced to IPP; damages for delay in Parole Board review under Article 5.4 ECHR are not warranted absent exceptional harm; the Parole Board did not unlawfully rely on the Secretary of State's directions.

Parties
Appellant: Sturnham; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Justice; Second Respondent/interested Party: Parole Board
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Judgment on Appeal From High Court (administrative Court)
Outcome
Secretary of State's appeal allowed; claimant's appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Imprisonment for Public Protection (ipp), Parole Board Decisions, Article 5.4 ECHR (right to Speedy Review), Damages for Delay, Statutory Interpretation (crime Sentences Act 1997 S.28(6)(b))
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Imprisonment for Public Protection (ipp) Parole Board Decisions Article 5.4 ECHR (right to Speedy Review) Damages for Delay Statutory Interpretation (crime Sentences Act 1997 S.28(6)(b))

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

Parties

Sturnham

Appellant

Secretary of State for Justice

First Respondent

Parole Board

Second Respondent/interested Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Judgment on Appeal From High Court (administrative Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Parole Board applied the correct test for release under s.28(6)(b) Crime Sentences Act 1997 for IPP prisoners
  2. 2 Whether delay in Parole Board review violated Article 5.4 ECHR and warranted damages
  3. 3 Whether the Parole Board unlawfully took into account Secretary of State's directions

Ratio Decidendi

The correct test for release under s.28(6)(b) Crime Sentences Act 1997 is whether it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner be confined, and this applies uniformly to all life prisoners, including those sentenced to IPP; damages for delay in Parole Board review under Article 5.4 ECHR are not warranted absent exceptional harm; the Parole Board did not unlawfully rely on the Secretary of State's directions.

Court Disposition

Secretary of State's appeal allowed; claimant's appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Award of £300 damages set aside; no damages awarded for Article 5.4 delay.
  • Claimant's appeal on statutory construction and directions dismissed.