CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 21 février 1996

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. February 1996 Hussain v. the United Kingdom - 21928/93 Judgment 21.2.1996 Article 5 Article 5-4 Procedural guarantees of review Review of lawfulness of detention Inability of person detained during Her Majesty's pleasure to challenge lawfulness of continued detention before a court: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   SCOPE OF THE CASE Applicant complained before the Court about issues concerning the "tariff" period of his detention. Complaint not expressly declared admissible by Commission.   Tariff period now elapsed. Conclusion : scope of case before Court confined to issues related to post-tariff detention. II.   ARTICLE 5 § 4 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Whether the requisite judicial control was incorporated in the original conviction Central issue before the Court: whether detention during Her Majesty's pleasure, given its nature and purpose, should be assimilated to a mandatory life sentence or to a discretionary life sentence. Applicant sentenced to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure because of his young age.   Sentence contained a fixed punitive period and an indeterminate term of detention only justifiable by the need to protect the public. Considerations as to applicant's dangerousness - centred on an assessment of his character and mental state - must of necessity take into account any developments in his personality and attitude as he grows older.   Otherwise, applicant would be treated as having forfeited his liberty for the rest of his life - a situation which might give rise to questions under Article 3. Therefore, applicant's sentence, after expiration of tariff, more comparable to a discretionary life sentence: new issues of lawfulness may arise in the course of detention and applicant is entitled under Article 5 § 4 to take proceedings to have these issues decided by a court at reasonable intervals. B.   Whether the available remedies satisfied the requirements of Article 5 § 4 Article 5 § 4 requires a review wide enough to bear on those conditions which, according to Convention, are essential for the lawful detention of a person subject to the special type of deprivation of liberty ordered against him. Parole Board's limited powers to recommend release do not satisfy the requirements of Article   5   §   4. Where substantial term of imprisonment is at stake and where characteristics pertaining to prisoner's personality and level of maturity are of importance in deciding on dangerousness, Article 5 §   4 requires oral hearing in the context of an adversarial procedure involving legal representation and the possibility of calling and questioning witnesses.   The absence of these procedural guarantees, despite new policy allowing prisoners opportunity to see the material before Parole Board, also prevents it from being regarded as a court or court-like body for the purposes of Article 5   §   4. Judicial review is no adequate answer to this requirement. C.   Recapitulation Article 5 § 4 requires that applicant be able to bring the case of his continued detention during Her Majesty's pleasure before a court with the powers and procedural guarantees satisfying that provision. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION Applicant's complaint under Article 14 - declared admissible by Commission - not raised before the Court. No separate issues arise under this provision. Conclusion : no reason to entertain complaint of its own motion (unanimously). IV.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Non-pecuniary damage: finding of violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction. B.   Costs and expenses: reimbursement on equitable basis. Conclusion : respondent State to pay specified sums to applicant for costs and expenses (unanimously).   © 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