Cross v Kirkby
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 2000 |
| Docket Number | (Application No 32340/96) |
| Year | 2000 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Before Before J.-P. Costa, President, and Judges Sir Nicolas Bratza, L. Loucaides, F. Tulkens, W. Fuhrmann, K.Jungwiert and K. Traja
Human rights - prisoner held at her Majesty's pleasure - tariff period having expired - entitled to have detention reviewed by body offering necessary judicial guarantees
Section Registrar: S. Dolle
Judgment March 28, 2000
A prisoner held at her Majesty's pleasure was entitled, after the expiry of his tariff, to have the lawfulness of his detention reviewed speedily by a body offering the necessary judicial guarantees, especially the power to order release and adversarial proceedings.
The European Court of Human Rights so held in finding, unanimously, a violation of article 5.4 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The applicant, Brian Curley, was a British national, born in 1961 and serving a sentence of detention during her Majesty's pleasure.
In 1979, Mr Curley, then aged 17, was convicted of murder and sentenced to be detained during her Majesty's pleasure. The tariff part of the applicant's sentence, attributable to deterrence and punishment, was eight years and expired in 1987.
Following the expiry of his tariff, the applicant's case was the subject of review by the Parole Board on a number of occasions. Following the fourth review in January 1991, the applicant absconded from prison. Following his recapture on July 6, 1993 it was decided that his case should be reviewed again in January 1995.
At that, the fifth review, which in fact took place in August 1995, the Parole Board recommended that the applicant be given a provisional release date of 12 months hence, during which time he should spend six months in a category D open prison, followed by six months in a pre-release employment scheme hostel.
The Parole Board's recommendation was not accepted by the Secretary of State for the Home Department who directed that the applicant be transferred to a category D prison and his case be subject to further review in 12 months.
The applicant was notified of the secretary of state's decision and the Parole Board's recommendation by letter of November 17, 1995.
By letter dated December 6, 1995, the applicant made representations against that decision. Those were rejected by the secretary of state by letter dated January 2, 1996.
The applicant sought leave to apply for judicial review of the secretary of state's decision. Leave was refused by a single judge of the High Court on April 26, 1996.
The applicant was advised by counsel who represented him at the hearing that there was no tenable basis for appeal against the decision refusing leave.
On August 12, 1996, the applicant was notified that, pursuant to interim measures introduced by the secretary of state on July 23, 1996, the applicant's case would be referred back to the Parole Board for review in the form of an oral hearing at which the applicant would be entitled to legal representation.
That review took place on February 7, 1997 and, by letter dated February 14, 1997, the Parole Board recommended the applicant's release. The Home Secretary followed the recommendation and released the applicant on May 7, 1997.
In light of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of Singh v United KingdomTLRHRC (The Times February 26, 1996; Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-I, paragraph 39) and Hussain v United KingdomTLRHRC (The Times February 26, 1996; Reports...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vellino v Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police
...Shelley v Paddock [1980] 348 at 357, Saunders v Edwards [1987] 1 W.L.R. 1116 at 1127,1132H-1133A, Revill v Newbery [1996] QB 567 and Cross v Kirkby (unreported 18 February 2000 Beldam, Otton and Judge LJJ). 13 It is common ground that under our law two persons can stand aside and watch a t......
-
Gray v Thames Trains Ltd and another
...upon a single justification but on a group of reasons, which vary in different situations. For example, as Beldam LJ pointed out in in Cross v Kirkby [2000] CA Transcript No 321, at para 74, in cases in which the court is concerned with the application of the maxim to property or contractua......
-
Stone and Rolls Ltd ((in Liquidation)) v Moore Stephens (A Firm)
...illustrates another situation in which ex turpi causa defeated a claim albeit that the illegality was not asserted by the claimant. 23 In Cross v Kirkby (CA 18. 2.2000) Beldam LJ remarked: "I do not believe that there is any general principle that the claimant must either plead, give eviden......
-
Nayyar & Others v Denton Wilde Sapte
...disproportionate his loss to the unlawfulness of his conduct.” 81 This passage was cited with approval in the Court of Appeal decision in Cross v Kirkby The Times, April 5, 2000. In that case Beldam LJ stated (paragraph 77): “I do not believe that there is any general principle that the cla......