European Court of Human Rights
| DOI | 10.1177/002201830206600506 |
| Published date | 01 October 2002 |
| Date | 01 October 2002 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
European Court
of
Human Rights
Home Secretary's Involvement in TariffFixing
Stafford
v
United
Kingdom
(App. No. 46295/99, 28 May 2002)
This was
an
application against
the
UK invoking Article 5(1)
and
(4) of
the
European
Convention on
Human
Rights lodged
under
the
former
Article 25. The applicant (S) alleged
that
his detention after recall on life
licence
had
ceased to be justified by
the
original sentence
and
that
he
had no
opportunity
to have his
continued
detention reviewed by a
court.
S was convicted of
murder
in 1967
and
released on licence in 1979.
His licence required, inter
alia,
that
he
remain
in
the
UK unless travel
abroad was agreed by his probation officer. In breach of this condition, S
travelled to
South
Africa
and
in 1980 his licence was revoked. S
returned
to
the
UK in 1989
and
was arrested
and
fined
due
to possession of a false
passport. He remained in custody because of
the
revocation of his life
licence. His representations to
the
Parole Board were rejected, he was
subject to a review in 1990,
and
was released on licence in 1991. In
1993, S was arrested
and
remanded
in custody
and
later convicted on
two
counts of conspiracy to commit forgery
and
sentenced to six years'
imprisonment. In 1994, following recommendations by
the
Parole
Board,
the
Home Secretary revoked his licence
under
the
Criminal
Justice Act 1991, s. 39(1). In 1996,
the
Parole Board
recommended
S's
release on licence feeling
that
nothing
more could be gained from his
detention
in
open
conditions. However,
the
Home Secretary rejected
this recommendation, stating
that
he
needed
to demonstrate good be-
haviour
and
responsibility
and
undertake
resettlement activities in
open
conditions for
two
years before release could be considered.
In
June
1997, S was granted leave for judicial review of
the
Home
Secretary's rejection of
the
Parole Board's recommendations
and
in
September of
that
year,
the
decision was
quashed
due
to
the
finding
that
the
Home Secretary
had
acted ultra
vires
in detaining apost-tariff pris-
oner
other
than
on
the
basis
that
there
existed an unacceptable risk
that
he might commit
further
such offences. In September 1997,
the
Home
Secretary's appeal was allowed as it was held
that
he enjoyed a wide
discretion
under
the
Criminal Justice Act 1991,
whereby
risk of re-
offending
need
not
be limited to offences of a violent or sexual nature,
although
it was stated
that
imposing asubstantial
term
of imprisonment
without
trial did
not
lie easily
with
the
ordinary concepts of
the
rule of
law. In
January
1998,
the
Home Secretary decided
that
Sshould only
spend six
months
in
open
conditions before his
next
review.
In July 1998,
the
House of Lords rejected S's appeal. While concurring
with
the
Court of Appeal's concern
that
the
imposition of a substantial
term
of imprisonment by exercise of administrative discretion was hard
to reconcile
with
the
rule of law, it held
that
the
1991 Act did indeed
confer awide discretion on
the
Home Secretary
and
that
there
was no
408
To continue reading
Request your trial