Fletcher & Ors v Governor of HMP Whatton & Anor
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE DINGEMANS
Areas of Law
- Public Law
- Human Rights Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The claim involves the allegation that the Secretary of State for Justice breached his public law duty by not providing necessary resources for IPP prisoners to demonstrate their suitability for release. The court ruled that there was a breach of this public law duty but no violation of Articles 5(1) and 5(4) of the ECHR. Multiple cases like R(James, Lee & Wells) and R(Kaiyam and Haney) were referenced. The decision mandates re-evaluating the placement of the Third Claimant on the HSP waiting list.
Judgment
Mr Justice Dingemans :
Introduction
These cases raise an important issue about the extent to which the public law duty, confirmed by the House of Lords in R(James, Lee & Wells) v Secretary of State for Justice [2009] UKHL 22 ; [2010] 1 AC 553 , on the Secretary of State for Justice (“the Secretary of State”) can be modified or affected by the level of resources made available by the Secretary of State. The public law duty is a duty on the Secretary of State to provide systems and resources that prisoners serving indeterminate sentences for public protection (“IPP’s”) need to demonstrate to the Parole Board, by the time of expiry of their tariff periods, or reasonably soon thereafter, that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that they remain in detention.
Each of the Claimants has now served the original tariff that was imposed on him by the Courts under the IPP. Each of the Claimants has, to date, waited at least two years for the Healthy Sex Programme (“HSP”) course which he has been recommended to undertake and is on his critical path to a recommendation for release from the Parole Board. The earliest that any of the Claimants is predicted to access the HSP, if the matter is not remedied, is a further 6-18 months from the date of this judgment. The latest that any of the Claimants is predicted to access the HSP is a further 2 ½ - 3 ½ years from the date of this judgment, which would be between 5 ½ and 6 ½ years after the recommendation that that Claimant undertake the HSP.
The Claimants complain that the Secretary of State is acting in breach of the public law confirmed duty. The Secretary of State accepts that there is a public law duty, but contended at the hearing that the duty has been discharged having regard to the available resources, and resisted the Claimants’ claims.
The First, Second and Third Claimants also claim an infringement of article 5(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights (“ECHR”) and just satisfaction, and the Third Claimant makes a claim for infringement of article 5(4) of the ECHR and just satisfaction. All the claims for infringement of article 5 of the ECHR are resisted.
A brief history of IPP’s
IPP’s were provided for by section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (“ the 2003 Act ”). IPP’s came into effect on 4 April 2005. Under an IPP the Court is required to specify a minimum period by way of tariff after the expiry of which the prisoner is eligible for review by the Parole B