Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)217
Betteridge against the United Kingdom
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
(Application No. 1497/10, judgment of 29 January 2013, final on 29 April 2013)
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 24 October 2013
at the 1182nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),
Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established;
Recalling the respondent State’s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it is party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:
- of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and
- of general measures preventing similar violations;
Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;
Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment, including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2013)912);
Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,
DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and
DECIDES to close the examination thereof.
Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Action report
Betteridge versus the United Kingdom; Application No 1497/10; judgment final on 29/04/2013
Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 3 September 2013
Case summary
Case description:
- The applicant was serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection (IPP). He sought a declaration that the delay in the Parole Board reviewing his case from December 2008-September 2009 breached Article 5(4) of the European Convention of Human Rights. The applicant had previously sought an order from the High Court that the Parole Board hearing should take place on the then next available date. The High Court, in its judgment of 23 June 2009, agreed that there had been a breach of Article 5(4) but did not make an order expediting a Parole Board hearing. The applicant subsequently applied to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) for redress in respect of the continuing violation of his Article 5(4) rights arguing that he had not had a speedy review of the lawfulness of his detention because his case was not heard, by the Parole Board, until January 2010.
- The ECtHR was satisfied that the High Court had expressly acknowledged the breach of the Convention in the applicant’s case (§38), but considered that it had not afforded adequate redress such as to deprive him of victim status. It accepted that it would have been unfair and impractical to fast-track prisoners who had pursued court proceedings to the detriment of others who had not. It further acknowledged that by the time of the High Court’s judgment, steps had been taken by the authorities to try and address the systemic delay (§40). However, it considered that the situation of delay arose at the relevant time as a direct result of the failure of the authorities to anticipate the foreseeable demands which would be placed on the prison system as a result of the introduction of the IPP sentence. The belated steps taken by the authorities to address the systemic problem did not relieve them of their obligation to ensure that the applicant enjoyed a speedy review of his detention.
- The ECtHR therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 5(4) because of the delay from 18 December 2008 until the applicant’s parole hearing took place on 10 January 2010. The ECtHR ordered the government pay the applicant non-pecuniary damages in the sum of €750. Mr Betteridge was also awarded €2000 in respect of legal costs.
Individual measures
Just satisfaction:
- The just satisfaction award has been paid; evidence previously submitted.
Individual measures:
- The government considers no further individual measures are required because the applicant’s parole hearing was held on 13 January 2010. Following a further Parole Board hearing on 5 December 2012, the applicant was released from prison on 19 December 2012.
General measures
Measures to avoid excessive delays before the Parole Board
The government has taken the following general measures relating to the functioning and structure of the Parole Board:
- In 2009, the Generic Parole Process (GPP) was introduced which established performance targets, supported the parole process with a single IT system and ensured dossiers submitted to the Parole Board were complete and timely.
- A number of steps have been taken to clear the backlog and to ensure that the Parole Board has the capacity to absorb its current workload. These include:
(i) Changes in the Parole Board Rules which have allowed non-judicial members to chair IPP hearings and give the Parole Board greater discretion in respect of the composition of panels. This has enabled the Board to increase its oral hearing capacity. The change in the Rules also gave the Board greater discretion in determining cases on the papers when it deemed that an oral hearing was not necessary. Nearly 38% of cases are now dealt with on the papers (which is both quicker and more efficient) as opposed to being considered at an oral hearing.
(ii) During 2010, an additional 60 judges were recruited to chair Parole Board oral hearings together with 48 new independent members. In 2011, 12 new psychiatrist members were appointed with recruitment of a further 21 independent members in 2012.
(iii) The Parole Board heard between 330 and 340 indeterminate pre-release cases per month during the final two quarters of 2012/13 as opposed to approximately 190-220 cases per month during 2009/10.
(iv) There are now much closer working links with the National Offender Management Service. The proportion of dossiers received in time has risen from 30% to over 90% during 2011/12 and continues to rise.
(v) A formal timeframe and tasks involved for all parties involved in the parole review have been introduced, with robust performance monitoring and greater accountability and responsibility for all key players.
(vi) A new central database, known as PPUD, which can be accessed by the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) and the Parole Board, became operational on 1 April 2009 and has been rolled out to every prison and probation trust, as well as to the UK Border Agency. This supports the parole process and tracks progression of cases and performance of all agencies more effectively.
(vii) A new case management system linked to PPUD was introduced within the Parole Board in May 2010.
(viii) Progress is being made to achieve a paperless parole process. At present, dossiers can be compiled and shared electronically between prisons, probation, NOMS and Parole Board staff. A new development programme will, subject to funding, digitalise completely the parole process giving key parties such as legal representatives and Parole Board Members electronic access to documents.
-A marked improvement became evident as a result of the above actions taken. The backlog of cases beyond their tariff expiry date as at 31 March 2013 was 1,382, reduced from over 2,500 in April 2010. The aim is to hear every case on time and to eliminate the backlog. However, as more IPP prisoners reach the expiry of their tariff, achieving this aim will be a challenge as further increases in indeterminate sentence workloads are expected until 2014/15.
-Central to eliminating the backlog is a focus on the wider parole process and how it can be streamlined within the existing legal framework in order to increase maximum capacity and to reduce delays at each stage. Agencies across the parole process are committed to working collaboratively to deliver parole reviews on time.
-A revised Generic Parole Process (GPP) board comprising a multi-disciplinary membership will oversee a programme of work that will improve the wider parole process. This includes a joint Parole Board/NOMS review which has just commenced and is intended to identify further efficiencies and improvements, so as to facilitate a higher proportion of cases being reviewed within the appropriate timescales.
-The GPP Board meets every two months to monitor and challenge progress towards agreed outcomes based on a key outcome measure of efficiency – i.e. the rate of cases concluded, supported by measures to safeguard quality and fairness and drive forward delivery of the programme work. Implementation of this programme will be supported by project boards which will report to the GPP Board. The intention is to ensure that the bulk of the programme can be completed within the 2013/14 financial year.
Amendments to the legislation governing IPP sentences
- As noted by the ECHR at paragraph 25 of the judgment, the legal regime governing IPP sentences, which was the root of the problem leading to excessive delays before the Parole Board, was amended such that, since 14 July 2008, IPP sentences were no longer mandatory.
- Furthermore, anyone convicted after 3 December 2012 cannot be sentenced to an IPP sentence which has been replaced with determinate and extended sentences.
Domestic case law
- Since the ECHR’s judgment in Betteridge, the UK Supreme Court issued its judgment in the cases of Faulkner and Sturnham (Faulkner, R (on the application of) v. Secretary of State for Justice and another [2013] UKSC 23) on 1 May 2013. These cases concerned the circumstances in which a prisoner serving an IPP, who has served his tariff, and whose further detention is justified only if it is necessary for the protection of the public, should be awarded damages for delay in reviewing the need for further detention following the expiry of the tariff. The Supreme Court set out a useful framework for domestic courts in determining whether-and at what level-compensation should be paid to prisoners following a breach of Article 5 (4). This should lead to an increased number of cases settling before proceedings are issued.
Publication and dissemination:
The judgment has been published on Bailii ( and in the All England Reporter at [2013] All ER (D) 82 (Feb).The government considers it unnecessary to disseminate the judgment any further because the IPP sentence has been replaced by determinate sentences where the release point is fixed.
4.State of execution of judgment:
The government considers that all necessary measures have been taken and the case should be closed.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy