article 5
23 September 2026 by Guest Contributor
The UK Human Rights Blog is moving to Substack.
From 19th October, all new articles will be published exclusively on our Substack, and no new content will appear on our current website.
To stay up to date with our latest articles and insights, please subscribe here: https://substack.com/@ukhumanrightsblog
The UK Human Rights Blog is grateful to Dr Lewis Graham, the author, and to the Administrative Court Blog (where this post first appeared) for permission to reproduce the below.
The Supreme Court has, once again, rejected a challenge to the compatibility of primary legislation with the ECHR. It has ruled that section 128(1) of the Police, Crime, Courts and Sentencing Act 2022 (amending the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997) is compatible with Articles 5, 7 and 14 of the Convention. The case is R (Quaye) v Secretary of State for Justice [2026] UKSC 34.
The legislation under challenge
Children who commit murder are not given the same life sentences as adults. Instead, they are sentenced to detention at His Majesty’s pleasure (DHMP). As part of the sentencing procedure, the trial judge sets a minimum term which must be served before the offender can apply to the Parole Board for release. Prior to changes made in 2021, the Secretary of State operated a policy whereby at a certain point (halfway through the minimum term) the offender could apply to them for a review of that term, with the possibility of achieving early release. This policy was amended in 2021, and was put on a statutory footing in 2022, via the Police, Crime, Courts and Sentencing Act 2022, section 128(1). The effect of this provision was to remove any opportunity for child offenders sentenced to DHMP to seek a review of the minimum term if the offender was sentenced after they became an adult (i.e. after their 18th birthday).
The result of the legislation, therefore, was to separate child offenders into two categories: firstly, those who committed a crime as a child (under the age of 18), and who were sentenced as a child; secondly, those who committed a crime as a child (under the age of 18) but who were sentenced after their 18th birthday. The former category remain entitled to seek review of the minimum term by the Secretary of State; the latter category, thanks to section 128(1), do not.
The claimant in this case fell into the latter category. He committed murder before his 18th birthday, but was sentenced after he turned 18; section 128(1) therefore applied, and he was not entitled to have his sentence reviewed. He sought to challenge the legislation via judicial review, arguing that section 128(1) breached his rights under Articles 5, 7 and 14 of the ECHR.
The courts below
The High Court (William Davis LJ and May LJ) upheld, in part, the claimant’s challenge: see [2024] EWHC 211 (Admin). It ruled that depriving child offenders of the opportunity to have their sentences reviewed by the Secretary of State gave rise to the possibility of arbitrary detention, contrary to Article 5 of the Convention. The Court noted, in this respect, that prior to the legislative change, some child offenders successfully convinced the Secretary of State to reduce their minimum term. To deny them the opportunity to show that their rehabilitation was complete, and that the sentence is no longer necessary, was to breach their Article 5 rights: see [59] of that case. The High Court also upheld the challenge based on Article 14 of the Convention. It found that the provisions treated two groups differently based on their age, and that the justifications put forward by the defendant – the protection of those under 18 at the time of sentence and the need to promote the interests of victim families – did not justify the arbitrary differentiation between those who were 18 at the time of sentencing and those who were not: see [46]-[58] of the High Court’s judgment. The High Court did not consider it necessary to rule on the legislation’s compatibility with Article 7: see [62] of its judgment.
The Court of Appeal (Sharp P, Lewis LJ and Cobb J) overturned the High Court’s judgment: see [2025] EWCA Civ 226. It found that section 128(1) of the 2022 Act did not breach Articles 5, 7 or Article 14 of the Convention. The claimant’s lack of opportunities for review of his sentence did not render the sentence arbitrary for the purposes of Article 5: see [87] of that judgment. The changes made by the 2022 Act were “concerned with the manner of execution or enforcement of the sentence” rather than changing the sentence itself, so Article 7 was not violated: see [102] of that judgment. Finally, emphasising the significant margin of appreciation applicable in this context, the Court concluded that the decision to treat offenders differently depending on their age at the time of sentence was not disproportionate, and that a fair balance had been struck between the rights of the offender and the interests of the victims’ families: see [118]-[143], and especially [142]-[143], of that judgment.
The Supreme Court’s judgment
The Supreme Court, in a judgment jointly written by Lord Stephens and Lady Simler (with which Lords Sales, Briggs and Hamblen expressed agreement), dismissed the claimant’s appeal. It ruled, like the Court of Appeal below it, that section 128(1) of the 2022 Act did not breach any Convention rights.
Article 5 ECHR
The Supreme Court strongly disagreed with the High Court’s findings relating to Article 5. The High Court fell into error, said the Supreme Court, by taking as its “starting point” the position that the 2022 legislation “did not change the essential nature of a sentence of [DHMP] and that an inherent element of the sentence was the requirement of continuing review”: [59]. Legislation had already governed the field since at least the year 2000 and, in any case, the combined effect of legislative intervention, up to and including section 128(1) of the 2022 Act, had created a complete code governing DHMP, or as the Court put it at [61]: “Since 2022 the scheme for sentencing persons who commit murder as children to detention at His Majesty’s pleasure is an entirely statutory one”.
The core question, then, was “whether by excluding any opportunity to review the minimum term for those aged 18 and over when sentenced to detention at His Majesty’s pleasure, section 27A(11) gives rise to a risk of arbitrary detention under article 5 ECHR”: [62]. The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that Article 5 does not require there to be an opportunity for review in this sense, either for sentences in general or for DHMP: [64], [68], [69]. Article 5 simply required there to be a sufficient connection between the conviction and the sentence actually imposed; this test was clearly met on the facts: [67]. Being sentenced to a minimum term, without the opportunity to petition the Secretary of State to reduce that sentence, was not arbitrary: [69].
Article 7 ECHR
The Supreme Court drew upon the familiar distinction, in the context of Article 7, between the retrospective modification of a sentence (or “penalty”) and changes made to the “execution” or “enforcement” of a sentence. The former is prohibited under Article 7; the latter is not: [129]. The Court agreed with the Court of Appeal in finding that the changes made by section 128(1) fell into the latter, rather than the former category: [144]. The changes related “exclusively to a change in the regime for early release on licence”: [143]. The sentence imposed on the claimant was DHMP, and it remained so after the changes made by the 2022 Act took effect: [142]. Article 7 was not breached by the relevant provisions of the 2022 Act: [144].
Article 14 ECHR
The Court also ruled that the provisions did not breach Article 14 of the Convention. Whilst the effect of section 128(1) was to create two categories of offender, which were treated differently based on a protected status (age) – see [114] – the Court found that the difference in treatment pursued a legitimate aim, the effect of which was to constitute a proportionate interference with the claimant’s rights.
The aim behind the legislation was the protection of the victim’s family members. In particular, the Court highlighted that victim families are contacted every time an application to vary the minimum term is made: [98]. Repeated engagement with this process caused “obvious and inevitable” distress for them: [100]. The desire to reduce this distress was “a consideration Parliament was entitled to regard as powerful”: [99]. The aim behind the legislation was therefore a legitimate one: [101]. There was a rational connection between the pursuit of that aim and the legislation in question: [115].
As to proportionality, the Court applied “low intensity of review” [79] for five reasons: first, the discrimination in this case was based on the ground of age, which is not a suspect category calling for heightened scrutiny: [80]; second, the provision under review is primary legislation: [88]; third, the legislation involves considerations of “social policy”: [89]; fourth, there is no European consensus on the issue at hand: [93]; fifth, the legislation in question involves consideration of “competing interests”: [94]. All of this meant that the legislature was in a stronger position than the court when it came to determining the proportionality of the measure, and the court should be slow to intervene in its judgment: [124]-[125]. The legislation did not breach Article 14: [126].
Comment
This judgment provides yet another instance of the Supreme Court rejecting a human rights challenge to legislation. In doing so, the Court applied a relatively orthodox understanding of what protection from arbitrariness requires in the context of Article 5, and was unwilling to recognise any wider principle that the needs of child prisoners to be protected from arbitrary detention mandates that their sentences be kept under review (at least in part because there existed no explicit Strasbourg authority to this effect: [64]).
The Court’s reasoning in relation to Article 14 is also noteworthy. By largely approving the reasoning of Sharp P in the Court of Appeal (see our blog on that judgment here) the Court once again applies a very deferential approach to discrimination issues in human rights law. Whilst the Court at least accepts that the intensity of review to be applied in Article 14 cases “varies according to the circumstances, the subject matter and the background” ([78]), the Court goes on to provide five reasons as to why a low intensity review is justified in the present case. These reasons are familiar and, as I have argued elsewhere, largely fail to convince. For example, almost all legislation – and certainly any legislation which involves differential treatment capable of engaging Article 14 issues – will involve “competing interests”. And the courts have interpreted “social policy” so widely that it has come to encompass almost any kind of legislative issue.
We also see in this judgment some now-expected language emanating from the case of SC: “the assessment of proportionality in this case ultimately depends on whether Parliament made the right judgement… this question cannot be answered by a process of legal reasoning because there are no legal standards by which a court can decide where the balance should be struck”: [124]. I have argued elsewhere that in some cases, this language has been used to justify an abdication of the duty of the courts to perform the required proportionality assessment (“there are no legal standards…”). This interpretation was rejected recently in the case of LMN, where the Court of Appeal confirmed that SC should not be treated as authority for the position that in some cases a proportionality assessment should not be carried out at all. Thankfully, the Supreme Court appears to confirm this in Quaye. After setting out the above passage, the Court confirms: “it follows that the court should be slow to substitute its own view for the political judgement of Parliament in this respect”. The message, therefore, is that courts should apply a low intensity review, rather than no review at all. This is a subtle but important difference, and a welcome clarification that SC is not to be treated as authorising the courts to abandon the proportionality test altogether in cases involving social and political controversy.
Dr Lewis Graham is a Lecturer in Human Rights Law at the University of Manchester and an editor of the Administrative Court Blog.
9 June 2026 by Guest Contributor
By Anogika Souresh and Esme Cairns.
The Supreme Court has handed down a unanimous judgment in A Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland of a devolution issue under paragraph 34 of Schedule 10 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 [2026] UKSC 16 (“A Reference”) and has overruled its previous decision in Cheshire West [2014] UKSC 19.
This decision has wide-ranging implications for people in care settings across the UK, public bodies, and practitioners, and reframes the approach to deprivation of liberty under Article 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights (“ECHR”).
The decision originated with a reference brought by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland on the meaning of deprivation of liberty for adults (defined as those aged 16 and above) assessed as lacking mental capacity to make decisions about their residence and care arrangements, and living in community settings. The Minister of Health for Northern Ireland (“the Minister”) sought to revise a code of practice in Northern Ireland to provide that even where an adult had been assessed as lacking the relevant mental capacity, they could nevertheless provide valid consent to their care arrangements through the expression of wishes and feelings which go beyond mere acquiescence to their confinement. The Minister sought to issue the revised code of practice under section 288(4) of the MCA 2016 to replace the existing Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards Code of Practice issued under section 288(1) of the MCA 2016.
The issue for the Supreme Court to determine was whether this revised code would be incompatible with Article 5 of the ECHR. If so, the revised code would be unlawful.
Continue reading →
23 January 2026 by Guest Contributor
By Josephine Lunnon
INTRODUCTION
The crux of the issue in this appeal is both narrow and, to some degree, exceptionally broad. It is narrow in that the central issue before the Court of Appeal was “whether an application made under s.75(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983 by a mental health patient to the First-tier Tribunal while subject to a conditional discharge is extinguished by the recall to hospital of that patient by the Secretary of State for Justice under s42(3) of the Act” [1]; a pithy, glamorous summary.
However, the appeal has simultaneously broad implications; the Court considered whether certain mechanisms of judicial oversight were effective as judicial safeguards and in providing speedy consideration of a person’s deprivation of liberty as required by Article 5(4) ECHR. In what was ultimately an academic discussion which was somewhat removed from the generative facts, the Court of Appeal examined whether there was indeed a “lacuna” in the FtT’s oversight of offenders who have been conditionally discharged with a restriction order.
Continue reading →
20 May 2025 by Anogika Souresh
J v Bath and North East Somerset Council & M [2025] EWCA Civ 478 concerns an appeal of a decision by Mrs Justice Lieven. Lieven J had held that there was no need for the High Court to make an order authorising the deprivation of J’s liberty in circumstances where both J’s parents and the local authority consented to the deprivation of liberty.
J is a 14-year-old boy with a number of diagnoses, including autism, ADHD, and Pica. J lives in a specialist children’s home. J is subject to a final care order under Section 31 of the Children Act 1989 (“CA 1989”). The Court of Appeal spelled out that the “major consequence of any care order is that it gives parental responsibility to the local authority, which is shared with the child’s parent(s), but with the local authority having control over the manner in which parental responsibility is exercised [CA 1989, s 33(3)]”.
Continue reading →
22 November 2024 by Esme Cairns
Introduction
Ten years on from Cheshire West [2014] UKSC 19 (covered on this blog at the time), the seminal decision on deprivation of liberty by the Supreme Court, the Family Court faces an ever-increasing number of applications for deprivation of liberty orders for children. Two recent decisions from Mrs Justice Lieven, Peterborough City Council v SM [2024] EWHC 493 (Fam) and Re J [2024] EWHC 1690 (Fam), could curb this trend. But while these decisions emanate from the Family Court, their reasoning may be of broader interest and could prompt wider questions about Article 5 ECHR and what constitutes a deprivation of liberty.
Continue reading →
10 May 2023 by Guest Contributor
On 29 November 2019 Usman Khan attended a rehabilitation event at Fishmongers’ Hall and stabbed five people, two fatally. On 2 February 2020 Sudesh Amman attacked two passers-by in Streatham High Road with a knife before being shot dead by police. Both men had previously been convicted of terrorism offences. Both men had been automatically released on licence halfway through their custodial sentences.
Following these attacks, on 3 February 2020, the Secretary of State for Justice made a statement to the House of Commons highlighting that in the interests of public protection immediate action needed to be taken to prevent automatic early release halfway through an offender’s sentence without oversight by the Parole Board. He announced that terrorist offenders would now only be considered for release once they had served two-thirds of their sentence and would not be released before the end of the full custodial term without Parole Board approval. This proposal was passed in England and Wales with the enactment of the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act 2020. It was extended to Northern Ireland by the Counter Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021 (“the Act”).
The Supreme Court in Morgan and others v Ministry of Justice (Northern Ireland) [2023] UKSC 14 considered whether this change in release provisions in Northern Ireland was contrary to Articles 5 and/or 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”).
Continue reading →
19 March 2020 by Joanna Curtis
Amid recent news reports of Turkey’s re-opening of migration routes to Europe, clashes at the Turkey-Greece border, and EU countries closing their borders due to Covid-19, this post looks back to a decision from the ECtHR Grand Chamber last November and the applicability of Article 5 ECHR in temporary border transit zones.
Ilias v Hungary (Application no. 47287/15) was the first case in which the ECtHR considered a land border transit zone between two member states of the Council of Europe, where the host state, Hungary, was also a member of the EU and had applied the safe third country rule under the EU asylum regime. The Grand Chamber held that the applicants’ detention did not breach Article 5 (the right to liberty and security of the person).
The applicants, Mr Ilias and Mr Ahmed, were both Bangladeshi nationals who had left Bangladesh at different times and in differing circumstances. They met in Greece and then traveled together to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, then to Serbia, and then to Hungary. On 15 September 2015 they arrived in Hungary and entered the border transit zone at Röszke. They submitted asylum requests on the same day. Within several hours their requests were rejected as being inadmissible and they were ordered to be expelled from Hungary back to Serbia as a safe third country. The applicants then spent 23 days in the transit zone whilst they appealed this decision. On 8 October 2015, following a final decision of the Hungarian courts which rejected their applications for asylum and ordered the applicants’ expulsion, Mr Ilias and Mr Ahmed were escorted out of the transit zone and crossed the border back into Serbia.
Continue reading →
24 May 2016 by Hannah Lynes
Photo credit: RT
In the news
The absence of fixed time limits in the UK system of immigration detention does not breach Article 5 of the Convention (the right to liberty), according to a recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights in JN v United Kingdom.
The applicant was an Iranian national who was refused asylum in the UK and issued with a deportation order. He was detained in an immigration removal centre for more than four and a half years, following completion of a custodial sentence for indecent assault. The applicant complained that in the absence of fixed time limits, domestic law was unclear and did not produce foreseeable consequences for individuals.
This argument was rejected by the Court, which re-iterated that Article 5 does not lay down maximum time limits for detention pending deportation. The issue was said to be whether domestic law contained sufficient procedural safeguards against arbitrariness, and in this regard the UK did not fall short of Convention requirements. However, the Court did find that between January 2008 and September 2009 deportation of the applicant had not been pursued with “due diligence”, and his detention during this period was therefore in breach of his right to liberty.
The decision will come as a disappointment to campaigners, who point out that the UK is the only EU Member State which places no time limit on the detention of foreign nationals. According to the UNHCR, detention can have “a lasting, detrimental impact on the mental and physical health of asylum seekers”, and both a cross-party Parliamentary Inquiry and a recent report of the UN Human Rights Committee have called on the UK to adopt an upper limit.
It remains open to the Government to do so. However, in light of the judgment in JN, the introduction of a statutory time limit would now appear unlikely. A spokeswoman told the Guardian that the Home Office were pleased with the outcome of the case: “We maintain that our immigration detention system is firm but fair”.
In other news
The Queen’s Speech has declared that “proposals will be brought forward for a British Bill of Rights” – wording that is near identical to last year’s commitment to ‘bring forward proposals for a British Bill of Rights”. Speaking to the Huffington Post, Policy Director at Liberty, Bella Sankey remarks that if this “felt like groundhog day, it was because little progress has been made” towards the scrapping of the Human Rights Act. UKHRB founder Adam Wagner provides a useful list of reactions and coverage here.
A report from the European Commission points to evidence that “the migration crisis has been exploited by criminal networks involved in trafficking in human beings”, who target the most vulnerable. According to official figures, in 2013-2014 there were 15,846 registered victims of trafficking in the EU, although the true number is considered to be “substantially higher”. The BBC reports on the findings.
The Supreme Court has upheld an interim injunction in the ‘celebrity threesome’ case, until after the full trial for invasion of privacy. The Court of Appeal had been wrong to enhance the weight attached to freedom of expression (article 10 ECHR) as compared with the right to respect for privacy (article 8 ECHR) – neither article had preference over the other in the balancing exercise. David Hart QC provides an analysis of the decision for the UKHRB – a summary of the main points can be found on RightsInfo
In the courts
The applicants were Hungarian nationals and members of parliament, who had been issued with fines for engaging in protests that were disruptive of parliamentary proceedings. They complained that this had violated their right to freedom of expression (article 10 ECHR).
The Court observed that Parliaments were entitled to react when their members engaged in disorderly conduct disrupting the normal functioning of the legislature. However, on the present facts domestic legislation had not provided for any possibility for the MPs concerned to be involved in the relevant disciplinary procedure. The interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression was therefore not proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued, because it was not accompanied by adequate procedural safeguards. Accordingly, the Court found a violation of Article 10.
The applicant’s husband had died in circumstances where there had been a negligent failure to diagnose meningitis shortly after (successful) nasal polyp surgery, although that negligent failure was not necessarily causative. In its Chamber judgment of 15 December 2015, the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention as to the right to life and, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 2.
Analysis of that decision is provided by Jeremy Hyam QC for the UK HRB. On 2 May 2016 the Grand Chamber Panel accepted the Portuguese Government’s request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber.
Publications
Those in need of some summer reading might consider: Five Ideas to Fight For, by Anthony Lester, recently published. The book describes the development of English law in relation to human rights, equality, free speech, privacy and the rule of law, explaining how our freedom is under threat and why it matters.
UK HRB posts
CA says ex-pats cannot say yes or no to Brexit – David Hart QC
The British Bill of Rights Show: Series 14, Episode 9…*Zzzzzzz* – Adam Wagner
Three Way in the Supreme Court: PJS remains PJS – David Hart QC
The National Preventive Mechanism of the United Kingdom – John Wadham
Bank Mellat’s $4bn claim: CA rules out one element, but the rest to play for – David Hart QC
Hannah Lynes
30 March 2016 by Fraser Simpson
Hammerton v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 6287/10 – read judgment.
The European Court of Human Rights has held that the detention of an individual following his breach of a civil contact order, where he had no legal representation, did not violate his rights under Article 5, ECHR (Right to Liberty and Security of Person). However, the decision not to provide compensation to the individual following a failure to provide him with a lawyer during domestic proceedings resulted in a violation of Article 6 (Right to a Fair Trial).
by Fraser Simpson
Continue reading →
18 December 2015 by Fraser Simpson
Photo credit: Guardian
Ansari, Re Judicial Review, [2015] CSOH 168 – read judgment.
The Outer House of the Court of Session has held that the duty imposed under Article 5, ECHR to afford prisoners a reasonable opportunity to rehabilitate themselves, recognised by the Supreme Court in R (on the application Haney and Others) v. The Secretary of State for Justice, [2014] UKSC 66, does not extend to local authorities.
by Fraser Simpson
Background
The petitioner, Yousef Ansari, is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment. The punitive part of his sentence, set at nine years, expired in March 2005. In his petition for judicial review, Mr Ansari claimed that the local authority, Aberdeen City Council, and the Scottish Government, had failed to afford him a reasonable opportunity to rehabilitate himself. A duty to offer opportunities for rehabilitation had been previously recognised as implicit in the scheme of Article 5 by the Supreme Court in Haney (see previous UKHRB post here). The hearing before Lord Glennie was restricted to the question whether the council owed such a duty.
Mr Ansari’s case
The starting point for the petitioner was the duty recognised in the Supreme Court decision in Haney. He argued that the duty required both the provision of opportunities for rehabilitation, which was the responsibility of the Scottish Ministers, and the provision of opportunities for the prisoner to demonstrate that they no longer posed an unacceptable risk to the public. This latter aspect of the Haney duty required the active cooperation of the local authority. Mr Ansari argued that Aberdeen City Council had failed to satisfy this duty. Whilst in the “Open Estate”, he was provided with the opportunity to return to the community – an important step in proving he no longer posed a threat. However, during this reintegration he was placed under extensive supervision by the local authority which, in his submission, undermined his ability to demonstrate he posed a reduced risk to the public.
Additionally, his ability to be temporarily released into the community was contingent upon the ability to provide the local authority with an appropriate “home leave” address. Mr Ansari claimed that during the vetting process the local authority had incorrectly considered his brother’s residence as inappropriate. Further, if no other address had been suitable, the local authority had a duty to provide him with accommodation under Part II, Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. On his case, these shortcomings had prevented Mr Ansari from temporarily returning to the community and therefore denied him the opportunity to demonstrate that he posed a reduced risk to the public.
In the alternative, Mr Ansari submitted that the duty would, in any event, extend to the local authority. The duty was imposed upon the “state” and, by virtue of s.6, Human Rights Act 1998, this would extend to public bodies such as Aberdeen City Council. As a result, they were bound by the requirements of Article 5, which included the duty recognised in Haney.
Imposing the Haney duty on the local authority, from the petitioner’s perspective, was a natural conclusion. Whilst the functions of the Scottish Ministers and the local authority differed, they both played an important role in the rehabilitation of Mr Ansari. A number of functions of the local authority, especially in the process relating to preparation for release, could not be carried out by the Scottish Ministers acting through the Scottish Prison Service. Extending the duty to provide reasonable opportunities for rehabilitation to the local authority would ensure that the Haney duty was “practical and effective” due to the important “real and practical sense” in which the local authority was involved in Mr Ansari’s rehabilitation.
The City Council’s submissions
The first respondent submitted that they did not owe the petitioner any duty under Article 5 as interpreted in Haney. The duty to provide opportunities for rehabilitation is not a freestanding duty, but instead stems from the decision of the state to detain an individual following conviction by a competent court. In James, Wells, and Lee v. the United Kingdom, [2012] ECHR 1706, the European Court of Human Rights recognised that part of the purpose of an indeterminate sentence was to rehabilitate the prisoner. Consequently, the Supreme Court in Haney recognised the need to provide reasonable opportunities to rehabilitate in the event that the state attempts to justify continued detention under Article 5(1)(a). The first respondent submitted that as they had no power to detain the prisoner, or order his release, it would be inappropriate to impose such a duty upon them.
Decision
Lord Glennie held that the duty recognised in Haney could not be extended to Aberdeen City Council. In line with submissions made by counsel for the first respondent, Lord Glennie held that the Haney duty is only imposed on states in the event that they have detained a prisoner and rely upon Article 5(1)(a) as justification. However, the local authority is in an entirely different position and has no powers to detain or release the prisoner. The first respondent was not required to justify the detention of the prisoner and, therefore, there was no reason to impose the Haney duty upon them.
In the petitioner’s submissions, reference was made to Lord Glennie’s decision in Reid, Re Judicial Review, [2015] CSOH 84 (read previous UKHRB post here). In Reid, Lord Glennie held that as part of the duty recognised in Haney, the Scottish Ministers had a duty to take “reasonable steps to procure” the cooperation of the local authority during the rehabilitation process (see paragraph 30). Lord Glennie clarified that in providing various services to the Scottish Ministers that aid the rehabilitation process, the local authority could only be considered to owe a duty to the Scottish Ministers, not the individual prisoner. As a result, Reid provided no support for the submission that the Haney duty should be extended to the local authority.
Lord Glennie also noted that certain statutes may impose specific duties upon a local authority. For example, s.27, Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (detailing the functions relating to the supervision and care of those released from prison) and the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 outlined relevant functions and duties of the local authority. However, these did not assist the argument that the general Haney duty arising from the operation of Article 5 could extend to the local authority. These duties existed independently from any duty to afford opportunities for rehabilitation. Any failures relating to these duties could be challenged by Mr Ansari in separate proceedings.
6 November 2015 by Michael Deacon
The Queen (on the application of LF) v HM Senior Coroner for Inner South London [2015] EWHC 2990 (Admin)
Where a coroner has reason to suspect that a person has died in custody or “otherwise in state detention” and that the death was violent, unnatural or by way of unknown cause, the coroner must hold an inquest with a jury (section 7 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (“CJA”)). The interesting issue in this case was whether and/or in what circumstances a person who has died whilst in intensive care will be regarded as having died “in state detention”, thus triggering a jury inquest.
Continue reading →
8 April 2014 by Rosalind English
Surrey County Council v P and Others, Equality and Human Rights Commission and others intervening [2014] UKSC 19 (March 19, 2014) – read judgment
Elizabeth-Anne Gumbel QC, Henry Witcomb and Duncan Fairgrieve of 1 Crown Office Row represented the AIRE Centre, one of the intervening parties, in this case. None of them have anything to do with the writing of this post.
Mentally incapacitated people have the same rights to liberty as everyone else. If their own living arrangements would amount to a deprivation of liberty of a non-disabled individual then these would also be a deprivation of liberty for the disabled person. So says the Supreme Court, which has ruled that disabled people are entitled to periodic independent checks to ensure that the deprivation of liberty remains justified.
Continue reading →
11 December 2013 by Rosalind English
Kaiyam v Secretary of State for Justice and Haney v Secretary of State for Justice (9 December 2013) [2013] EWCA Civ 1587 – read judgment
The Court of Appeal has ruled that continued detention in prison following the expiry of the “minimum terms” or “tariff periods” of their indeterminate terms of imprisonment did not breach prisoners’ Convention or common law rights, but has left it to the Supreme Court to determine the substance of the Convention claims in detail.
The appellant prisoners claimed that their continued detention breached the Article 5, and in one case Article 14. The courts at first instance had been obliged to dismiss the claims under Article 5 in the light of the House of Lords decision in R(James and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2009] UKHL 22, [2010] 1 AC 553, notwithstanding that Strasbourg subsequently held in James, Wells and Lee v United Kingdom that the House of Lords decision was wrong.
Continue reading →
5 October 2012 by Alasdair Henderson
NADA v. SWITZERLAND – 10593/08 – HEJUD [2012] ECHR 1691 – read judgment
How is a Member State of the ECHR supposed to react when the UN Security Council tells it to do one thing and the Convention requires it to do another? That is the interesting and important question which the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights was presented with, and dodged, in its recent decision in Nada v. Switzerland.
Mr Nada is an 82-year-old Italian-Egyptian financier and businessman, who in November 2001 found himself in the unfortunate position of having his name added to the international list of suspected funders and supporters of al-Qaeda and the Taliban, which is maintained by the Sanctions Committee of the UN Security Council. Mr Nada has consistently denied that he has any connection to al-Qaeda or any other terrorist group, and in 2005 the Swiss Government closed an investigation after finding that the accusations against him were unsubstantiated. However, despite this Mr Nada remained on the list until September 2009. During the intervening 8 years the impact on Mr Nada’s health and his private and family life was severe, so he brought a claim against Switzerland for breach of his Article 8 rights, as well as breaches of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Article 3 (right not to be subjected to ill-treatment), Article 5 (right to liberty) and Article 9 (right to freedom of religion).
Continue reading →
16 June 2011 by Alasdair Henderson
Neary and his father
London Borough of Hillingdon v. Steven Neary [2011] EWHC 1377 (COP) – read judgment here.
The Court of Protection (“COP”) emphatically ruled last week that a local authority unlawfully detained a young man with autism and learning difficulties for almost an entire year, breaching his right to respect for family life as a result.
Take a 21-year-old disabled person, the Mental Capacity Act 2005, a devoted father and an adversarial social care department. Mix in centuries-old principles laid down in Magna Carta, recent case-law on Article 5 and Article 8 of the ECHR, and some tireless campaigning by legal bloggers. The result? A landmark decision on the use of deprivation of liberty (“DOL”) authorisations in respect of individuals without full legal and mental capacity.
Continue reading →
Recent comments