Information Note on the Court’s case-law 22
September 2000
Oldham v. the United Kingdom - 36273/97
Judgment 26.9.2000 [Section III]
Article 5
Article 5-4
Speediness of review
Two year period between reviews of detention following recall to prison: violation
Facts: The applicant, convicted of manslaughter in 1970, was sentenced to life imprisonment. He was released on licence for the third time in 1993. In 1996 the Secretary of State revoked the applicant’s licence after his partner had been taken to hospital with injuries allegedly caused by the applicant. The Parole Board confirmed the applicant’s recall to prison. The Discretionary Lifer Panel met in November 1996 and rejected the applicant’s representations against his recall. The Secretary of State informed him that the next review was set for November 1998. The applicant subsequently completed courses in inter alia anger management and alcohol awareness within eight months. Following a hearing in December 1998, the Discretionary Lifer Panel recommended his release on licence.
Law: Article 5 § 4 – Where automatic review of the lawfulness of detention has been established, reviews much take place at reasonable intervals. It is not for the Court to rule as to the maximum period between reviews which should automatically apply to discretionary life prisoner – the system has a flexibility which must reflect the realities of the situation, namely, the differences in the personal circumstances of the prisoners under review. In that connection, discretionary lifers are not to be distinguished from persons detained on account of mental illness. The courses which the applicant underwent were concluded within eight months of his recall and no further courses were arranged during the following sixteen months before his next review. The period of two years was not justified, therefore, by considerations of rehabilitation and monitoring. Moreover, during that period the applicant had no possibility of applying for a review himself. In the circumstances, the two year delay was not reasonable and the question of the continuing lawfulness of his detention was not decided speedily.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – The Court considered that there was no causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage claimed by the applicant. It awarded him £1,000 (GBP) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and also made an award in respect of costs.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy