Re Cd (No 2)
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 05 December 2007 |
| Date | 05 December 2007 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
Court and Reference: Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland), KERL4824.T
: Kerr LCJ, Campbell LJ, Higgins J
: Whether the finding that the Life Sentence Review Commissioners had erred in law or the absence of judicial authorisation for detention for several months meant that Art 5(1) ECHR was breached such that compensation or bail could be sought
: CD, a life sentence prisoner recalled to custody, succeeded in a judicial review application against the decision of the Life Sentence Review Commissioners upholding his detention: the Court of Appeal ([2008] Prison Law Reports 200) found that the Commissioners had erred in law in the approach they took to evidence as to whether CD had sexually abused 2 young family members; a claim that the requirements of Art 5(4) ECHR had been breached was rejected. CD then sought bail and also compensation on the basis that his rights under Art 5(1) ECHR had been breached: he suggested that the lack of judicial authorisation for his detention over a period of several months meant that Art 5(1) was breached.
:
Kerr LCJ:
[1] The appellant has applied for what is described in his skeleton argument as interim relief. Two species of relief are claimed. The first is that he should be awarded compensation on the basis that his detention is in breach of his rights under Art 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Secondly he applies for bail.
[2] Although this court quashed the decision of the Panel of Commissioners that it should not recommend the appellant's release to the Secretary of State, we specifically rejected the appellant's claim that his detention violated Art 5(4) of the Convention. The question whether there was a violation of Art 5(1) was not raised on the hearing of the appeal. Indeed, it is not mentioned in the notice of appeal although it featured in the Order 53 statement. It was not directly in issue before Girvan J, however, and he made no finding in relation to it.
[3] Mr Hutton, who appeared on behalf of the appellant, argued that, since this court has concluded that the Commissioners decision was to be quashed, the question of his Art 5(1) rights must now be addressed in order to determine whether he is entitled to compensation. It is also relevant, he says, to the question whether the appellant should be released on bail. Mr Hutton argues that if Girvan J had concluded that the decision of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial