Pennington, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board [2009] EWHC 2296 (Admin) (18 September 2009)

The Parole Board breached Article 5(4) ECHR by failing to communicate its decision speedily, resulting in unlawful detention for a period of slightly more than three months; this breach entitles the claimant to compensation under Article 5(5) ECHR.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2009] EWHC 2296 (Admin)
Parties: Claimant: Kevin Pennington; Defendant: The Parole Board
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 18 September 2009
Procedural Posture: Judicial Review / Substantive Hearing, Post Permission
Outcome: Breach of Article 5(4) ECHR found; entitlement to compensation under Article 5(5) ECHR established; damages not yet quantified.
Legal Topics: Article 5(4) ECHR, Parole Board Delay, Compensation for Unlawful Detention, IPP Sentences

Human Rights Prison Law Administrative Law Article 5(4) ECHR Parole Board Delay Compensation for Unlawful Detention IPP Sentences

Source-derived case record

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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Kevin Pennington

Claimant

The Parole Board

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Substantive Hearing, Post Permission

Legal Issues

1 Whether delay by the Parole Board in communicating its decision breached Article 5(4) ECHR
2 Whether such breach entitles the claimant to damages under Article 5(5) ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Breach of Article 5(4) ECHR found; entitlement to compensation under Article 5(5) ECHR established; damages not yet quantified.

Orders

Stay for 14 days to allow parties to agree damages figure
Further directions to be considered if agreement not reached

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.