Murray, R (on the application of) v Parole Board & Anor
The period set for the claimant's next Parole Board review, in the context of the interim arrangements and administrative demands, does not breach the requirement of speediness under Article 5(4) ECHR. The measures taken are reasonable and ensure access to proceedings to decide the lawfulness of detention.
- Parties
- Claimant: William Murray; Defendant: The Parole Board; Defendant: The Secretary of State for the Home Department
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 21 February 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Judgment
- Outcome
- Claim dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Parole Board Review, Mandatory Life Sentence, Article 5(4) ECHR, Speediness of Detention Review, Administrative Arrangements for Prisoner Release
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
William Murray
Claimant
The Parole Board
Defendant
The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the period set for the claimant's next Parole Board review complies with the requirement of speediness under Article 5(4) ECHR
- 2 Whether administrative resource constraints justify delay in review of mandatory life sentence prisoners
Ratio Decidendi
The period set for the claimant's next Parole Board review, in the context of the interim arrangements and administrative demands, does not breach the requirement of speediness under Article 5(4) ECHR. The measures taken are reasonable and ensure access to proceedings to decide the lawfulness of detention.
Court Disposition
Claim dismissed
Orders
- No order for costs
- Leave to appeal granted
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment