Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

Prison: Early Release; European Convention on Human Rights, Article 14

Document Cited authorities 5 Cited in Related
Vincent
Published date01 August 2004
DOI10.1350/jcla.68.4.273.36524
AuthorChristopher Gale
Date01 August 2004
Subject MatterDivisional Court
JCL 68(4).doc..Divisional Court .. Page273
Divisional Court
Prison: Early Release; European Convention on Human
Rights, Article 14
R (on the application of Hindawi and Another) v Secretary of State for the
Home Department [2004] EWHC 78, [2004] All ER (D) 284 (Jan)
Both Hindawi and the other claimant, Headley, were foreign nationals
serving determinate prison sentences of 45 years and seven years re-
spectively, and both of whom were liable to be removed from the UK
when they were released from prison under deportation orders. Under
ss 35(1) and 46(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, the Secretary of
State could refuse early release to a long-term prisoner who was liable to
be removed from the UK without a recommendation from the Parole
Board. Both applicants were refused early release by the Secretary of
State under the statutory regimes found in the 1991 Act and both
applied for judicial review of the refusal.
Both claimants argued that the defendant Secretary of State’s decision
violated Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights since
they had been denied any independent review of their cases by the
Parole Board as they were subject to deportation orders. Other prisoners
not subject to such orders would have been entitled to a review under
the 1991 Act. The defendant submitted that any discrimination that
might be found was not within the ambit of any substantive provision of
the Convention to which an Article 14 claim could and must be linked.
The defendant also contended that he was in a better position than the
Parole Board to decide which prisoners liable to be removed from the
UK should be released, evidenced by the creation of different statutory
regimes.
HELD, GRANTING THE APPLICATIONS, there had been a breach of
Article 14 and the applications would be allowed. The claimants’ rights
were covered by the ambit of a substantive Convention provision,
namely Article 5(4). They had suffered differential treatment when
compared with others in a similar situation, since other...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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