Al Hassan-Daniel and Another v Revenue and Customs Commissioners (JUSTICE Intervening)

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLord Justice Thomas
Judgment Date17 December 2010
Neutral Citation[2010] EWCA Civ 1439,[2010] EWCA Civ 1443,[2009] EWCA Civ 139
Docket NumberCase No: C1/2010/0177,Case No: C1/2008/1829,Case No: B3/2010/0188
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)
Date17 December 2010
The Queen on the Application of Chester
The Parole Board & Another

[2009] EWCA Civ 139


Lord Justice Thomas

Case No: C1/2008/1829





Ms F Krause (instructed by the Bar Pro Bono Unit) appeared on behalf of the Appellant, who appeared via video link.


(As Approved)

Lord Justice Thomas

There is before me a renewed application for permission to appeal in a case involving the applicant, who is a lifer prisoner. He was convicted on 1 March 1978 of the murder and rape of a young child. At the time he was 23. In accordance with the law then in place, the judge put forward a minimum term recommendation of 12 years to Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department. That term was endorsed by the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lane. However, there were grounds for the Home Secretary reconsidering the term; he set the term as 20 years. That term expired, therefore, in 1997 as the applicant had been on remand for a period prior to his conviction, and time on remand then and now is counted towards the minimum period. He has not been released. He has for a considerable period of time been held at Her Majesty's Prison at Frankland, a lifer prison, and he his now in HM Prison Wakefield from where he has appeared by video link today after a considerable delay for reasons that have now been explained to me.


The Parole Board considered his case in 1995, 1998, 2004 and 2006, and again, in circumstances to which I will refer in a moment, in 2008. On each occasion the Parole Board made no recommendation as to his release. On 4 April 2008 his lifer manager refused permission to recategorise him for a move to open conditions.


There had been begun in February 2007 judicial review proceedings arising out of the 2006 decision. After a number of hearings the matter came on before Underhill J as a renewed permission application on 6 May 2008. When it came before him, not only was there a challenge to the decision of the Parole Board of 2006, but a challenge to the decision of the lifer manager not to re-categorise him, made in 2008. In a very detailed judgment he refused that application.


It is clear that the principal reason, or in the applicant's view the only reason, why he was not moved to open conditions and has not been released, is that he has not undertaken what is known as an extended Sex Offender Treatment Program which was available to him. He had undertaken a Sex Offender's Treatment Program in 1999 at Wakefield Prison. The view is that he must undertake the extended program. There is clearly from the papers a considerable issue of confrontation, about which I need say no more at present.


After the hearing before Underhill J there was a renewed application to this court. Before that was considered on paper by Hooper LJ there was a hearing before the Parole Board on 28 August 2008, which again refused to set conditions for his release. It seems pretty clear that when the renewed application came on before Hooper LJ, Hooper LJ did not know of that or of the decision of the Parole Board as set out in its letter of 1 September. In what can only be described as a careful letter, the Parole Board on 1 September 2008 set out in detail the reasons why it had taken the position it did. It set out at paragraph 11 of the letter what it considered should happen:

“Accordingly, the panel determined that your risk still remained too high for transfer to open conditions or release. Having seen and heard you give evidence, it was the opinion that your apparently confrontational and rigid style may not be assisting your rehabilitation and progress through the prison system. It did, however, agree with Mr Payne-Smith and Ms Krause that there should be thought given to trying to resolve the outstanding issues between you and the prison authorities and to the possibility of 'tailoring' some treatment to deal with the outstanding areas of risk fully set out in the reports. The panel also noted that you had no release plan that had been put forward and investigated. It was also concerned that your attitude towards complying with the outstanding offence related work would be an indication of your response and willingness to comply with the restrictions of licence conditions.”


I have enquired today, because it was not apparent to me from the papers, what had taken place to carry the matter forward. There is a further letter in the papers before me from a Mr Marston of the Parole Board, dated 19 November, but that letter does not deal with this issue. The reference to the report of Mr Payne-Smith is a reference to an independent report which very carefully (and in what appears to be a balanced way) sets out the difficulties that have arisen. It seems to me plain from paragraph 11 of the decision of the Parole Board that they recognised there was force in some of what was put forward by Mr Payne-Smith. However it is of course a matter for them and those acting on behalf of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Justice as to the way in which apparently what is set out in that report, as reflected in paragraph 11 of the Parole Board's decision, should be taken forward.


The issues raised in paragraph 11 are closely allied to the fundamental argument that is made by Ms Krause in this case. Without disrespect to her, I believe it can be summarised very briefly. It is this: that the system adopted by the Parole Board of relying on attendances at courses (where they are available) is a system which is not lawful. That is because it is incumbent on the authorities, both the Parole Board and the prison authorities, to examine the position of each person, particularly a lifer who has been in prison for 30 years, in a much more rounded way. It seems to me, at first sight, that what is in paragraph 11 of the Parole Board's decision is some indication that in the circumstances of this particular and unusual case, where a lifer has been detained for 10 years beyond his tariff period, that there may be force in that submission.


This was not an issue before Underhill J. The view could be taken that the proper course would be for me to say that none of this evidence should be admitted, that there was nothing therefore to displace the decision of Underhill J, and that what should happen is that, if Ms Krause wanted to pursue the argument which I have basically outlined, she should start all over again. Bearing in mind that this matter has been going on for some time, and the cost and expense of that process, it seems to me that the better course would be to adjourn this application for the Parole Board and the Secretary of State to have an opportunity of considering the matters which the Parole Board set out in paragraph 11 of their decision, which I have set out in this short judgment. The matter should then be restored before me in, say, five or six months' time. It seems to me also that that would give a further opportunity to look at the point which was raised before Underhill J as to whether the issue is also related to the question of transfer to a Category C prison.


What I therefore propose to do is to adjourn the application, to require that the matter come back before me in five or six months' time but there be permission to apply to bring it back earlier or later to me. I would request that counsel attend on behalf of the Parole Board and the Secretary of State to assist the court in relation to the issue raised in paragraph 11 and to anything that may have happened subsequent to it.


I should add that in the view I have taken of this case it would be of great assistance to the court if counsel were able to represent the applicant on that renewed application, but of course that is not a matter for me; it is entirely a matter for the Legal Services Commission. It is for them to consider.


I therefore adjourn the application to enable the further matters indicated to be dealt with by the Parole Board and the Secretary of State.

Order: Application adjourned

Peter Chester
(1) The Secretary of State for Justice
(2) Wakefield Metropolitan District Council

[2010] EWCA Civ 1439

Mr Justice Burton

Before: The Master of the Rolls

Lord Justice Laws


Lord Justice Carnwath

Case No: C1/2010/0177





Mr Hugh Southey QC (instructed by Chivers Solicitors) for the Appellant

Mr James Eadie QC and Mr Jason Coppel (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor) for the Respondent

Hearing dates: 3 November 2010

Lord Justice Laws



This is an appeal brought with permission granted by Mummery LJ on 13 May 2010 against the judgment of Burton J delivered in the Administrative Court on 28 October 2009 ( [2009] EWHC Admin 2923) by which he dismissed a claim for judicial review brought by the appellant, a serving prisoner, to challenge his statutory disfranchisement from voting in domestic and European Parliamentary elections. The disfranchisement of prisoners is effected by s.3(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (“ROPA”), which...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • R (on the application of Chester) v Secretary of State for Justice
    • United Kingdom
    • Supreme Court
    • October 16, 2013
    ...President Lord Hope Lord Mance Lord Kerr Lord Clarke Lord Sumption Lord Hughes THE SUPREME COURT Michaelmas Term On appeal from: [2010] EWCA Civ 1439; [2011] CSIH 67 Appellant (Chester) Hugh Southey Richard Reynolds (Instructed by Chivers) Respondent HM Attorney General James Eadie QC Jas......
  • Alexander Lewis-Ranwell v G4S Health Services (UK) Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • February 20, 2024
    ...of action, or the common law defence of criminality as Sedley LJ describes it in Al Hassan-Daniel v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2010] EWCA Civ 1443; [2011] QB 866 at para 6) does not operate as a defence to such a 150 The facts pleaded by the Claimant in support of his claim and wh......
  • The Queen (on the Application of Paolo Antonio v Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • November 21, 2014
    ...not no damages. 111 Additionally Mr Goodman correctly points out that the case of Al Hassan-Daniel v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2011] QB 866 establishes that the common law defence of ex turpi causa did not form part of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, save a......
  • EH (A protected party, by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division
    • December 19, 2016 a contrary decision by the Supreme Court, illegality is no answer to a human rights claim. The Court of Appeal so held in Al Hassan Daniel v Revenue & Customs [2010] EWCA Civ 1443. I deduced that the claimant's team regarded the HRA claims as a fall-back, in case they lose the illegality......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Declarations of Unconstitutionality in India and the U.k.: Comparing the Space for Political Response
    • United States
    • University of Georgia School of Law Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law No. 43-2, 2015
    • Invalid date
    ...v. Sec'y of State for Health, [2009] UKHL 3.345. Smith v. Scott, [2007] C.S.I.H. 9. In R (Chester) v. Sec'y of State for Justice, [2010] EWCA (Civ) 1439, the Court of Appeal declined to make another declaration of unconstitutionality on the same issue, highlighting that the Court had no rol......
  • Negotiable Rights, What Rights?
    • United Kingdom
    • Wiley The Modern Law Review No. 75-3, May 2012
    • May 1, 2012
    ...vUnited Kingdom (2006) 42 EHRR 41; Greens & MT Apps Nos 60041/08 and60054/08 23 November 2010; Chester vSecretary of State for Justice [2010] EWCA Civ 1439.22 Contrar y to many press reports, neither the ECtHR nor domestic courts have in fact deter minedwho should be given the vote.What the......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT