Guntrip v Parole Board of England and Wales & Anor
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BLAKE
Areas of Law
- Human Rights Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Civil Procedure
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The claimant was sentenced to IPP in 2005 and repeatedly denied parole due to continued perceived risks. He challenged the delays and the lack of oral hearings, claiming breaches of Article 5(4) ECHR rights and discrimination. The court deemed the denial of an oral hearing unlawful per Osborn principles and found significant periods of avoidable delay violating his right to a speedy review of detention. While resource shortcomings and ongoing behavioral issues affected parole, the court ultimately adjudged delays as breaches but did not rule the detention as arbitrary under Article 5(1). Damages were awarded for the breaches identified.
Judgment
The Honourable Mr Justice Blake:
This is the judgment of the court. On 20 November 2005 the claimant was sentenced at Snaresbrook Crown Court for an offence of street robbery to Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) with a minimum term of 2 years pursuant to s.225 Criminal Justice Act 2003 . He was then aged 23 years. Time spent on remand was to count towards the minimum term with the consequence that the term to be served for punitive purposes expired in July 2007.
On 13 July 2009, two years after the expiry of the minimum term, the Parole Board concluded, following an oral hearing that the claimant continued to pose a significant risk of serious harm to members of the public and declined either to direct his release on licence or to recommend a transfer to open conditions.
On 9 December 2010, in a challenge by way of judicial review brought by the claimant against the same defendants as in the present case, [2010] EWHC 3188 (Admin) , Ouseley J granted a declaration that there had been a breach of the claimant’s human right to proceedings of appropriate expedition in which the lawfulness of his detention could be determined as required by Article 5(4) European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). He further awarded damages of £1,200 split equally between the defendants for their respective responsibilities for a period of delay of a year. He also concluded that the Secretary of State’s decision that the next review of the legality of the continued detention should take place 18 months after the July 2009 review was lawful. The period was set to enable mental health assessments to be made and for the claimant to meet the objectives set in his progress to release.
In April 2010, the claimant’s solicitors obtained a psychiatric report from Dr Duffield. A dossier was provided to the Parole Board in August 2010 and Intensive Case Management (ICM) Directions were made on 18 November 2010 with a view to setting a target date for February 2011. In considering the future scrutiny of the claimant’s case, Ouseley J had expressed the hope that a hearing should not be further delayed.
In January 2011, the Parole Board fixed a date for a hearing of the claimant’s case in March 2011, giving due priority in the light of the history. At that stage the Board envisaged an oral hearing. However at about this time the claimant’s behaviour in prison and his mental health underwent a significant deterioration. Between 15 October 2010 and 31 May 2011, 21 discip