BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Bayliss v The Parole Board of England & Wales [2014] EWCA Civ 1268 (10 June 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/1268.html Cite as: [2014] EWCA Civ 1268 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(GERALDINE ANDREWS QC)
Fetter Lane London EC4A 1NL |
||
B e f o r e :
(LORD JUSTICE ETHERTON)
LORD JUSTICE FULFORD
____________________
LEE BAYLISS | Claimant/Applicant | |
-v- | ||
THE PAROLE BOARD OF ENGLAND & WALES | Defendant/Respondent |
____________________
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
History
"... posing a significant risk. He had long- standing problems with drugs misuse and it was considered that the risk factors could only be addressed whilst he was in the security of those conditions."
"(1)This section applies where—
(a)a person aged 18 or over is convicted of a serious offence committed after the commencement of this section, and
(b)the court is of the opinion that there is a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm occasioned by the commission by him of further specified offences.
(2)If—
(a)the offence is one in respect of which the offender would apart from this section be liable to imprisonment for life, and
(b)the court considers that the seriousness of the offence, or of the offence and one or more offences associated with it, is such as to justify the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment for life, .
the court must impose a sentence of imprisonment for life.
(3)In a case not falling within subsection (2), the court may impose a sentence of imprisonment for public protection ..."
The Decision
This Appeal
"191. However, having regard to object and purpose of art 5(1), it is clear that compliance with national law is not sufficient in order for a deprivation to be considered 'lawful'. Article 5(1) also requires that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the purpose of protecting the individual from arbitrariness ..."
The court went on to observe that in order for the detention not to be arbitrary it was critical that the indeterminate sentence was imposed because the prisoner was considered by operation of the relevant statutory assumption to pose a risk to the public (see paragraph 198). The court stressed that the circumstances in which arbitrariness may exist have not been set out in an exhaustive list and the relevant principles are to be considered in a flexible manner.
Ground 2
"The Deputy Judge was plainly right that the only proper Defendant in a claim based on the alleged unlawfulness of the detention was the Secretary of State. It is the Secretary of State who was responsible in law for the Applicant's detention at all times, even though he was obliged to follow the directions of the Parole Board as regards release. Buxton LJ's judgment in Noorkov is in fact contrary to the Applicant's submission. No doubt the Board is a co-defendant in some of the cases, but that will only properly be so when there is a discrete challenge to its decision(s): although this case is indeed pleaded as a challenge to such decision, this ground is concerned with the detention as such."
Ground 3
Ground 4
Ground 5.
Ground 6