Pennington, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board

Pennington, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board

The Parole Board breached Article 5(4) ECHR by failing to reach and communicate its decision on the claimant's release speedily, resulting in a period of unlawful detention of about three months, which cannot be described as de minimis. The delay was attributable to lack of resources or errors/omissions by the Board and was not justified by reasonable conduct.

Parties
Claimant: Kevin Pennington; Defendant: The Parole Board
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Substantive Judgment on Liability, Remedy Adjourned
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; breach of Article 5(4) ECHR found; quantum of damages adjourned for further submissions or agreement.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Article 5(4) ECHR, Unlawful Detention, Damages for Breach of Human Rights
Public Law Human Rights Law Prison Law Judicial Review Article 5(4) ECHR Unlawful Detention Damages for Breach of Human Rights

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kevin Pennington

Claimant

The Parole Board

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Substantive Judgment on Liability, Remedy Adjourned

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Parole Board breached Article 5(4) ECHR by failing to reach and communicate its decision speedily
  2. 2 Whether the delay caused unlawful detention entitling the claimant to damages under Article 5(5) ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the delay was excusable or de minimis

Ratio Decidendi

The Parole Board breached Article 5(4) ECHR by failing to reach and communicate its decision on the claimant's release speedily, resulting in a period of unlawful detention of about three months, which cannot be described as de minimis. The delay was attributable to lack of resources or errors/omissions by the Board and was not justified by reasonable conduct.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; breach of Article 5(4) ECHR found; quantum of damages adjourned for further submissions or agreement.

Orders

  • Declaration that the Parole Board breached Article 5(4) ECHR by failing to provide a speedy determination and communication of its decision.
  • Stay for 14 days to allow parties to agree damages; further directions to be considered if no agreement is reached.