Murray v Parole Board & Anor [2003] EWCA Civ 1561 (06 November 2003)

The Court held that the interval between reviews must be reasonable and fact-dependent, but in this case, the applicant had already been released and no relief was sought; therefore, the appeal was dismissed without a finding that the 15-month interval was excessive or in breach of Article 5(4) ECHR.

Citation: [2003] EWCA Civ 1561
Parties: Appellant: William Murray; Respondent: The Parole Board; Respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 06 November 2003
Procedural Posture: Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Judgment
Outcome: appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: Article 5(4) ECHR, Mandatory Life Sentences, Parole Review Intervals, Judicial Review, Compliance With Strasbourg Jurisprudence

Human Rights Prison Law Administrative Law Article 5(4) ECHR Mandatory Life Sentences Parole Review Intervals Judicial Review Compliance With Strasbourg Jurisprudence

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3

Parties

William Murray

Appellant

The Parole Board

Respondent

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the interval between parole reviews for mandatory lifers complies with Article 5(4) ECHR
2 Whether logistical difficulties justify delay in review
3 Whether the review process meets the requirements of a court under Article 5(4)

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed