R (Noorkoiv) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeMR JUSTICE HENRIQUES
Judgment Date14 May 2001
Neutral Citation[2001] EWHC 345 (Admin)
Date14 May 2001
Docket NumberCO/1204/2001
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)

[2001] EWHC 345 (Admin)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

(ADMINISTRATIVE COURT)

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

Before:

Mr Justice Henriques

CO/1204/2001

The Queen on the Application of

Leo Robert Noorkoiv
and
(1) Secretary of State for the Home Department
(2) The Parole Board

MISS FLO KRAUSE (instructed by Tuckers, 63-65 Mosley Street, Manchester M2 3HZ) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.

MISS J RICHARDS (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor, Queen Anne's Chambers, 28 Broadway, London SW1H 9JS) appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

Monday, 14th May 2001

MR JUSTICE HENRIQUES
1

This is an application for judicial review, permission having been granted on 27th April this year by Richards J. The claimant, an automatic life sentence prisoner, seeks to challenge the defendants' refusal to bring forward his date for his Discretionary Lifer Panel hearing.

2

The specific issues for my determination are as follows: firstly, whether the second defendant, the Parole Board, acted lawfully and/or rationally in listing the claimant's hearing at the end of the quarterly period, despite the claimant's tariff expiring at the beginning of the said quarterly period; secondly, whether the first defendant the Secretary of State for the Home Department's policy of referring lifers' cases to the second defendant on a quarterly basis is lawful and/or rational in respect of automatic life sentence prisoners with a short tariff.

3

The claimant was sentenced to life imprisonment under section 2 of the Crime Sentences Act 1997 at the Crown Court sitting at Coventry. The specified period sometimes referred to as the relevant or tariff period was 30 months. He had pleaded guilty to an offence contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Since he had a previous conviction for a like offence, 11 years earlier, and there were no exceptional circumstances, the judge had no alternative other than to pass an automatic sentence of life imprisonment, regardless of the risk presented by the offender.

4

The claimant was initially allocated to Her Majesty's Prison Brixton, which is designated as the main centre for short-tariff lifers. An accelerated programme has been put in place to ensure that, where possible, these prisoners are released on or shortly after tariff expiry.

5

In December 1999 the claimant was moved to Her Majesty's Prison Wellingborough as a Category C prisoner. On 4th August 1999 the Life Review Unit wrote to the claimant's then solicitors, informing them that, due to the relatively short length of his tariff, the claimant would not have a review before tariff expiry. Such a decision appeared at that time, in the light of correspondence with the Parole Board, to be highly prejudicial to the claimant's interests and resulted in judicial review proceedings, heard by Thomas J, and now known as Noorkoiv Number 1, which unquestionably resulted in the Prison Service altering its policy in relation to lifers being expected to spend a period in open conditions prior to release for the purpose of rehabilitation.

6

The revised policy is that a transfer to open conditions will not be a prerequisite to release in the vast majority of short-tariff, automatic lifers, for the obvious reason that they do not need the rehabilitation process in open conditions and the sentence was not based on future risk.

7

Following the proceedings in Noorkoiv Number 1, the Secretary of State, on 28th September 2000, referred the claimant's case to the Parole Board under section 28 of the Crime Sentences Act 1997, so that the Parole Board could consider whether the claimant was suitable to be released upon tariff expiry.

8

The claimant's tariff expires on 22nd April 2001. When his case was referred to the Parole Board, a total of 80 cases in all were referred, all being lifers entitled to a hearing in the period 1st April to 30th June, the second quarter. Having received the list of 80 lifers, together with their tariff expiry date, the Parole Board has the difficult task of fixing each one of the 80 hearings in the 37 different establishments.

9

Accompanying the defendants' skeleton argument is the Discretionary Lifer Panel Programme for April, May and June of this year. It shows the claimant's case listed on June 20th/21st. The task of listing the 80 hearings is somewhat complex. Firstly, the tariff expiry date must have passed; secondly, where there are several lifers at the same establishment, the hearings take place on the same date or on consecutive dates where there are more than three cases to be heard. That is a form of consolidation. The only exception to consecutive dates at the same establishment is where a High Court Judge is needed for some cases but not others at the same establishment.

10

The necessity to consolidate cases arises from the fact that there are only 20 judges available, most of whom sit for a maximum of six weeks a year, and a limited number of psychiatrists, some 18 in number, each panel requiring a judge, a psychiatric member, wherever appropriate, and a lay member. Hearings must also take place for prisoners who have been recalled to prison following the revocation of their life sentence.

11

The defendants submit that the programme of hearings arise out of administrative necessity rather than mere convenience. If cases were referred piecemeal, as is contended for by the claimant, and given a hearing date a day after the tariff expiry date, or even seven days thereafter, it would result in a panel visiting certain establishments three times rather than once, for example in the case of Her Majesty's Prison Dartmoor, or six times rather than on two consecutive dates at Her Majesty's Prison Wellingborough.

12

Having studied the programme with care, it is easy to appreciate the necessity to consolidate hearings. The present system guarantees a hearing date within three months of a tariff expiry date. A prisoner may be fortunate and receive a hearing date one day after the tariff expiry date. If by chance his tariff expiry date is near the end of June, his chances of a very early hearing are guaranteed. The closer the expiry date to the beginning of April, the greater the chance of delay. The greater the number of lifers in the same jail, the more likely it is that the hearings will be towards the end of the quarter, since it is more likely that one of the lifers, there being several, will have a late tariff expiry date. What may be a delay for one lifer will be an early date for a fellow prisoner in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • R (Cawser) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 5 Noviembre 2003
    ...remains a danger. The importance of keeping the preventive period as short as possible was underlined by this court's decision in R (Noorkoiv) -v—Home Secretary [2002] 1 WLR 3284, holding that Article 5(4) of ECHR required the Secretary of State and the Parole Board to put in place a new sy......
  • Re Mullan's Application for Judicial Review
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland)
    • Invalid date
  • Re Saggar (Confiscation Order: Delay)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 24 Febrero 2005
    ...in the exercise was that resources were diverted elsewhere, but that could not amount to a legitimate reason (cf R (Noorkoiv) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 770, [2002] 1 WLR 3284). In any event, in October 1999 the Commissioners had told Ms Barnett of the Na......
  • R (Johnson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 9 Mayo 2007
    ...(Sentences) Act 1997 s.2. The position of the automatic life prisoner was considered by the Court of Appeal in R (Noorkoiv) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 770 [2002] 1 WLR 3284. Under the 1997 Act a life sentence had to be imposed on a person convicted of a ser......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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