Sturnham v Secretary of State for Justice & Anor (Rev 1) [2012] EWCA Civ 452 (23 February 2012)

Sturnham v Secretary of State for Justice & Anor (Rev 1) [2012] EWCA Civ 452 (23 February 2012)

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, not whether the risk is equivalent to that at sentencing for IPP; damages for Article 5.4 delay are only awarded if necessary for just satisfaction, which was not the case here; the Parole Board did not unlawfully take account of the Secretary of State's directions.

Citation
[2012] EWCA Civ 452
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
Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Judgment on Appeals From the High Court
Outcome
Appeal by Secretary of State allowed (damages award set aside); claimant's appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Parole Board Decisions, Interpretation of Crime (sentences) Act 1997 S.28(6)(b), Article 5.4 ECHR (right to Speedy Review of Detention), Damages for Delay in Parole Review, Test for Release of IPP Prisoners
Public Law Human Rights Law Criminal Law Parole Board Decisions Interpretation of Crime (sentences) Act 1997 S.28(6)(b) Article 5.4 ECHR (right to Speedy Review of Detention) Damages for Delay in Parole Review Test for Release of IPP Prisoners

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 27 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

Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Judgment on Appeals From the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Parole Board applied the correct test for release under s.28(6)(b) of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 for IPP prisoners
  2. 2 Whether delay in parole review violated Article 5.4 ECHR and warranted damages
  3. 3 Whether the Parole Board unlawfully took account of 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, not whether the risk is equivalent to that at sentencing for IPP; damages for Article 5.4 delay are only awarded if necessary for just satisfaction, which was not the case here; the Parole Board did not unlawfully take account of the Secretary of State's directions.

Court Disposition

Appeal by Secretary of State allowed (damages award set aside); claimant's appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Secretary of State's appeal (2011/0904) allowed: damages award set aside; declaration of Article 5.4 violation remains.
  • Claimant's appeal (2011/0979) dismissed: Parole Board applied correct test; no unlawful reliance on Secretary of State's directions.