*R (on the application of Haney and others) v Secretary of State for Justice; R (on the application of Robinson) v Governor of HMP Whatton and another

Sentence – Imprisonment. In considering appeals regarding alleged breaches of art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of delays towards post-tariff release of prisoners serving life or indeterminate sentences for public protection (IPP), the Supreme Court accepted the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights conclusion in (James v United Kingdom (Application Nos 25119/09, 57715/09 and 57877/09) (2012)33 BHRC 617 that the purpose of the sentence included rehabilitation in relation to prisoners subject to life and IPP sentences in respect of whom shorter tariff periods had been set. The Supreme Court further accepted as implicit in the scheme of art 5 that the state was under a duty to provide an opportunity, reasonable in all the circumstances, for such a prisoner to rehabilitate himself and to demonstrate that he no longer presented an unacceptable danger to the public. A duty to facilitate release could and should be implied as an ancillary duty - a duty not affecting the lawfulness of the detention, but sounding in damages if breached.

Category: