Category:Prison law cases
See Prison law for background information.
The old category structure used on this page is comprehensive as it contains every relevant case. The new database structure was introduced in 2019. It is more potentially useful than the old categorisation system: it includes all cases since January 2017, but only a minority of older cases: see Special:Drilldown/Cases. The pages below are initially ordered according to the dates on which they were added to the site (most recent first). The order can be changed by clicking on the symbol beside a column heading: click on the symbol beside "Page and summary" for alphabetical order; click beside "Categories" for the order in which the cases were reported. Click on the arrow symbol again to reverse the order. Click on a page name to view the relevant page. Asterisks mark those cases which have been added to the new database structure.
| Case and summary | Date added | Categories |
|---|---|---|
| * Parole Board representation for those lacking capacity R (EG) v Parole Board [2020] EWHC 1457 (Admin) — (1) The Parole Board Rules 2019 introduced a power to appoint a representative "where the prisoner lacks the capacity to appoint a representative and the panel chair or duty member believes that it is in the prisoner's best interests for the prisoner to be represented". In the absence of anything similar to the accreditation system operating in the MHT (and the LAA's pragmatic approach to the regulation preventing providers from making an application for Legal Aid) a solicitor cannot "assume the dual role of legal representative and litigation friend" and so this appointment power cannot be exercised. (2) The 2019 rules, although silent on the matter, allow for the appointment of a litigation friend because: (a) "other representative" in the expression "solicitor, barrister or other representative" includes litigation friend; and, if that is wrong, (b) as with the 2016 rules, it is allowed when necessary under the general power to make directions. (3) In the absence of an accreditation scheme or other litigation friend, the prisoner needed the Official Solicitor to act if his parole review was to progress; (obiter) the OS has the statutory power to act in Parole Board proceedings. (4) The judge limited her decision to issues concerning EG individually, and criticised counsel for EG and the EHRC for continuing the trend in public law litigation of grounds of challenge evolving during proceedings in a way which lacked procedural rigour (in this case, by raising wider issues including the identification and assessment of non-capacitous prisoners and the Public Sector Equality Duty). | 2020‑06‑16 13:07:57 | 2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Litigation friend cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Prison law cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Reconsideration of Parole Board decision Joseph, Application for Reconsideration by [2019] PBRA 43 — Unsuccessful application by prisoner with mental health background for reconsideration on basis of irrationality and procedural unfairness of Parole Board oral hearing panel's decision not to direct release on licence. | 2020‑02‑19 22:52:21 | 2019 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Prison law cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2019 cases
|
| * Prison Rules and solicitor-client letters R v SSHD, ex p Leech (No 2) [1993] EWCA Civ 12 — "Section 47 (1) of the Prison Act 1952 empowers the Secretary of State to make rules for the regulation and management of prisons. Rule 33 (3) of the Prison Rules 1964 provides as follows: "(3) Except as provided by these Rules, every letter or communication to or from a prisoner may be read or examined by the governor or an officer deputed by him, and the governor may, at his discretion, stop any letter or communication on the ground that its contents are objectionable or that it is of inordinate length." The principal question arising on this appeal is whether Rule 33 (3) is ultra vires section 47 (1) of the Act on the ground that it permits the reading and stopping of confidential letters between a prisoner and a solicitor on wider grounds than merely to ascertain whether they are in truth bona fide communications between a solicitor and client." | 2019‑05‑03 13:13:45 | 1993 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Prison law cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 1993 cases
|
| * MHT/Parole Board delay R (LV) v SSJ [2012] EWHC 3899 (Admin) — "This is a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review challenging delay, it is said, on the part of the Secretary of State for Justice and the Parole Board in fixing a hearing of the Parole Board." | 2019‑03‑23 16:07:39 | 2012 cases, Cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Prison law cases, Transcript, 2012 cases
|
| * Autism in prison R (Hall) v SSJ [2018] EWHC 1905 (Admin) — Unsuccessful judicial review by prisoner claiming breach of Equality Act 2010 reasonable adjustments duty. | 2019‑03‑17 15:01:40 | 2018 cases, Cases, Disability discrimination, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Prison law cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2018 cases
|
| * Damages for Parole Board delay R (Bate) v Parole Board [2018] EWHC 2820 (Admin) — "Four grounds of claim were pleaded in detail. They can be summarised as challenging: (i) a failure, in violation of Art 5(4), to provide a parole hearing within a reasonably speedy interval; (ii) a systemic failure to maintain and operate a system for speedy and prompt parole reviews; (iii) an unlawful policy for prioritisation of listing which ignores support for release and prospects of release which are identified as realistic, and/or ignores a legitimate expectation given as to the timetable for a deferred hearing; (iv) an unlawful failure, by the decision letter of 2nd December 2016, to direct expedition in the listing of Mr Bate's deferred hearing. ... For the reason I have given, I would find in Mr Bate's favour on ground 1 and ground 4, and would award him damages on the basis indicated in paragraphs 77, 88 and 89 above. I would refuse relief in respect of grounds 3 and 4." | 2019‑02‑03 15:32:51 | 2018 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Prison law cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2018 cases
|
| * MHT/Parole Board delay LV v UK 50718/16 [2018] MHLO 22 — "Complaint: The applicant complains under Article 5(4) of the Convention that she did not have a speedy review of the legality of her detention. In particular, she contends that her right to a speedy review was violated both by delays on the part of the Public Protection Casework Section and the Parole Board, and from the unnecessary two-stage Tribunal/Parole Board process. Question to the Parties: Was the review of the applicant’s detention which commenced on 24 May 2011 and concluded on 21 March 2013 conducted 'speedily' within the meaning of Article 5(4) of the Convention?" (The first paragraph of the decision is wrong as the applicant's solicitor works for Campbell Law Solicitors.) | 2018‑04‑21 22:48:11 | 2018 cases, Cases, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Judgment available offline, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Prison law cases, 2018 cases
|
| * Costs against Parole Board R (Gourlay) v Parole Board [2017] EWCA Civ 1003 — "Does the established practice of the High Court, to make no order for costs for or against an inferior tribunal or court which plays no active part in a judicial review of one of its decisions, extend to the [Parole] Board?" | 2018‑02‑13 01:41:11 | 2017 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Prison law cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2017 cases
|
| * Sentencing guidance; MHT/PB delay R v LV; R (LV) v SSJ [2015] EWCA Crim 45, [2015] EWCA Civ 56 — "There are before the court: (1) Sitting as the Court of Appeal Criminal Division six cases where indeterminate sentences (either imprisonment for public protection (IPP) or a life sentence) had been passed between 1997 and 2008. Each specified a minimum term. In each case there was psychiatric evidence before the court with a view to a judge considering making a hospital order under MHA 1983 s37 as amended with a restriction under s41 of the same Act. The sentencing judge did not make such an order, but each was subsequently transferred to hospital under a transfer direction made by the Secretary of State under s47. (2) Sitting as the Court of Appeal Civil Division, a civil appeal in relation to a judicial review brought by the first of the appellants in the criminal appeals of the actions of the Secretary of State for Justice and the Parole Board relating to delay in the determination of her application for release from custody." In relation to the criminal aspect: in cases where medical evidence suggests mental disorder, the offending is partly or wholly attributable to that disorder, treatment is available and a hospital order may be appropriate, the court should consider (and, if appropriate, make) a s45A order before considering making a hospital order. | 2015‑02‑12 23:21:36 | 2015 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, MHLR summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Prison law cases, Sentence appeal cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2015 cases
|
| R (Guntrip) v Parole Board [2014] EWHC 4180 (Admin), [2014] MHLO 132 — (1) When the prisoner was transferred to psychiatric hospital an unlawful and unfair decision was taken to cancel (rather than adjourn) a Parole Board hearing. (2) The delay of 12 months breached Article 5(4) and damages of £2,500 were awarded. | 2014‑12‑31 11:53:56 | 2014 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Prison law cases, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| * MHT/PB delay R (LV) v SSJ [2014] EWHC 1495 (Admin) — "In the light of authority, Mr Southey accepts that he cannot submit as a matter of principle that the system by which the Claimant's release was considered by two successive bodies, the Tribunal and the Parole Board, is in conflict with the Claimant's Article 5(4) rights. ... He goes on to argue that, on the facts as they are here, if there were to be two hearings before two bodies, the state had a legal obligation to ensure expedition throughout the overall process. He says there was no such expedition, since the review of the legality of the Claimant's detention took almost 22 months from the date when the Claimant applied to the Tribunal on 24 May 2011 to the decision of the Parole Board on 21 March 2013. Within that period, Mr Southey makes a series of specific complaints as to periods of delay. ... The claim for judicial review is dismissed as against both Defendants. ... Although it took a considerable time to be resolved, there was in my view no breach of the obligation on the part of the State to provide a 'speedy' resolution." | 2014‑05‑18 01:11:22 | 2014 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Prison law cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2014 cases
|
| * MHT/PB delay R (LV) v SSJ [2013] EWCA Civ 1086 — The applicant had been given an IPP sentence then transferred to hospital under s47/49. On 12/12/11 the MHT decided she met the criteria for conditional discharge. The dossier reached the Parole Board on 29/3/12, and the hearing was arranged for 12/3/13. She claimed a breach of Article 5(4) during: (a) the period before the dossier was ready, when no judicial body was responsible for supervising her progress and the potentiality for release, and (b) the subsequent long period until the Parole Board met. The Court of Appeal gave permission to apply for judicial review (being simpler than giving permission to appeal the High Court's refusal of permission to apply for judicial review). | 2013‑08‑30 21:58:45 | 2013 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Prison law cases, Transcript, 2013 cases
|
| R (Faulkner) v SSJ [2013] UKSC 23, [2013] MHLO 60 — Quantum of compensation for delayed Parole Board hearing. | 2013‑08‑08 01:27:23 | 2013 cases, Detailed summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Prison law cases, Transcript
|
| R (Francis) v West Midlands Probation Board [2010] EWCA Civ 955 — Permission to appeal in relation to two issues granted: (1) 'The first concerns the relationship between the Parole Board, the Probation Service acting through one or more of its regional boards, MAPPA, and the prisoner who is serving a life sentence, when it comes to considering his life after release'; (2) 'The second issue concerns the rights of the appellant and Ms Kemp under Article 8'. | 2011‑08‑09 19:55:49 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
|
| R (Sturnham) v SSJ [2011] EWHC 938 (Admin) — Damages of £300 were awarded under Article 5 for anxiety and distress caused by six-month delay in Parole Board hearing. | 2011‑04‑30 19:16:25 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Prison law cases, Transcript
|
| R (Faulkner) v SSJ [2011] EWCA Civ 349 — The claimant's Parole Board hearing should have been in March 2008 but was delayed in breach of Article 5(4) until January 2009 when he was released; he had shown on balance that he would have been released in March 2008. Having considered the case law on quantum, the court concluded that: 'a figure of £10,000 is appropriate and necessary to reflect the loss of some 10 months' conditional liberty by reason of the state's breach of the claimant's right not to continue to be detained in the absence of a speedy decision by a judicial body. We have not arrived at it by applying a multiplier to a monthly sum, although it can no doubt be disaggregated in that way.' | 2011‑03‑30 21:42:23 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Prison law cases, Transcript
|
| R (Guntrip) v SSJ [2010] EWHC 3188 (Admin) — Parole Board Article 5(4) delay case. | 2011‑01‑23 00:51:32 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
|
| R (Faulkner) v SSJ [2010] EWCA Civ 1434 — Delay in Parole Board hearing led to Article 5(4) breach. | 2010‑12‑16 23:20:12 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
|
| R (Bary) v SSJ [2010] EWHC 587 (Admin) — The living and working regime for the inmates of the Detainee Unit at HMP Long Lartin (who are being held indefinitely pending extradition or deportation) was changed so that they were confined to the Unit, because of concerns that a new inmate might radicalise Muslims or plan/incite terrorism if allowed access to the main prison. The decision was challenged on the grounds that (1) it was irrational, unreasonable, disproportionate or made for illegitimate aims; (2) in breach of Article 3, it caused inhuman or degrading treatment for the two inmates with pre-existing mental illnesses; (3) in breach of Article 8, it unjustifiably removed them all from normal association and was an unjustifiable infringement of their right to the preservation of their mental stability in the broadest sense. The claim failed on all grounds. | 2010‑07‑17 23:12:46 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Prison law cases, Transcript
|
| R (Noone) v HMP Drake Hall [2010] UKSC 30 — In calculating release dates, the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 apply to sentences of under 12 months provided that these are not imposed concurrently or consecutively with sentences of 12 months or over, and the CJA 2003 apply to sentences of under 12 months that are imposed concurrently or consecutively with sentences of 12 months or over. | 2010‑07‑09 20:19:44 | 2010 cases, Detailed summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Prison law cases, Transcript
|
| R (Gill) v SSJ [2010] EWHC 364 (Admin) — The Defendant's failure to offer the Claimant, who was a short-tariff lifer with learning disability, sufficient suitable offending behaviour work to give him the opportunity to demonstrate safety for release, unlawfully breached the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and breached his public law duties. | 2010‑03‑02 20:27:53 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Disability discrimination, Judgment available on Bailii, Prison law cases, Transcript
|
| R (Johnson) v SSJ [2009] EWHC 3336 (Admin) — The Secretary of State's decision that the next Parole Board review would occur 14-15 months after the last review was unsupported by any reason and, on the facts, inconsistent with Article 5(4). | 2009‑12‑23 19:09:37 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Prison law cases, Transcript
|
| R (S) v SSHD and Parole Board [2002] EWHC 2424 (Admin) — Licence recall while on s3. | 2009‑10‑31 18:46:40 | 2002 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
|
| R (D) v SSHD [2002] EWHC 2805 (Admin) — Parole Board and Mental Health Tribunal. | 2009‑10‑31 18:05:52 | 2002 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Prison law cases, Transcript
|
| R (AB) v SSJ [2009] EWHC 2220 (Admin) — Continued detention of pre-operative male-to-female transsexual in male prison breached Article 8 and was Wednesbury unreasonable. | 2009‑10‑09 22:15:20 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Prison law cases, Transcript
|
| R (Pennington) v Parole Board [2009] EWHC 2296 (Admin) — Delays by the Parole Board, both in issuing ICM directions (which caused a 2-month delay in listing the hearing) and in communicating the decision a month late, breached Article 5(4). Claims for "pure delay" - that is where a Parole Board hearing has been delayed because of a lack of resources available to or errors or omissions on the part of the Parole Board - survive the House of Lords decsion in James. Damages to be assessed at a later date. | 2009‑09‑27 15:02:27 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Prison law cases, Transcript
|
| R (Faulkner) v SSJ [2009] EWHC 1507 (Admin) — 13 months after referral, the claimant was released by the Parole Board and subsequently absconded. (1) The question of whether to dismiss the claim purely on the grounds that the claimant was a fugitive was left open. (2) The Article 5(4) claim was inconsistent with R (James) v SSJ [2009] UKHL 22: there was no Article 5(4) breach as the system had not broken down entirely (by the PB being denied the information that it needed for such a long period as to make continued detention arbitrary). (3) If that analysis is wrong, there still was no breach as, looking at the totality of the matter, there had been a review within a reasonable period. (4) Even if there had been a breach, it could not be shown that the claimant would have been released earlier. (5) Damages, if appropriate, would have been in the region of £1,000-£2,000, or perhaps £4,000; but, seeing as he had absconded, no damages would have been awarded. [Caution.] | 2009‑07‑20 21:28:29 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Prison law cases, Transcript
|
| R (Betteridge) v Parole Board [2009] EWHC 1638 (Admin) — (1) Article 5(4) requires a speedy hearing to determine the lawfulness of detention, independently of any consideration of arbitrariness under Article 5(1). (2) The delay in listing the claimant's Parole Board hearing, due to a lack of panel members, breached his Article 5(4) right to a speedy hearing; however, as there had been no chance of release, there was no claim in damages. (3) The steps being taken to fix the systemic failures, and the ongoing problems, mean that further Article 5(4) delay claims are not appropriate unless in very special circumstances. | 2009‑07‑07 21:32:08 | 2009 cases, Detailed summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Prison law cases, Transcript
|
| R (Mehmet) v SSJ [2009] EWHC 1202 (Admin) — The failure, without good cause, to provide to the Parole Board for nearly a year a report on how the Claimant’s performance on the ABLB course impacts on the assessment of risk in his case (SARN report) was a breach of the Secretary of State’s public law obligations and accordingly unlawful. | 2009‑06‑03 21:56:07 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Prison law cases, Transcript
|
| R (James) v SSJ [2009] UKHL 22 — (1) Following the introduction of IPP sentences, the Secretary of State was in breach of his public law duty to make reasonable provision to enable IPP prisoners (if necessary by completing treatment courses) to demonstrate to the Parole Board their safety for release. The appropriate remedy was declaratory relief condemning the Secretary of State's failures and indicating that he is obliged to do more. The systemic failure has ended (following amendments including making the IPP sentence generally available only when the notional minimum term is at least 2 years) so no further relief is appropriate. (2) In relation to post-tariff detention, the systemic failure did not: (a) make the detention unlawful (detention remains lawful under statute until Parole Board release); (b) breach Article 5(1) (causal link with objective of detention remained until Parole Board decision); or (c) breach Article 5(4) (which is concerned with procedure not substance) although cases with prior findings or concessions of Art 5(4) breaches were remitted to Admin court for assessment of damages. | 2009‑05‑06 22:02:20 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Prison law cases, Transcript
|
| R (Cooper) v Parole Board [2007] EWHC 1292 (Admin) — Target time of 55 days from referral to hearing in recall cases breached Article 5(4); as did the refusal to expedite case on on basis of prisoner's mental state. | 2009‑04‑12 20:27:31 | 2007 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Prison law cases, Transcript
|
| R (Johnson) v SSHD [2007] EWCA Civ 427 — Parole Board delay breached Article 5(4). | 2009‑04‑12 13:10:48 | 2007 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
|
| R (Black) v SSJ [2009] UKHL 1 — The decision on whether to release a determinate sentence prisoner at his parole eligibility date (the half-way point of a long-term Criminal Justice Act 1991 prisoner) did not engage Article 5 as the decision was merely the administrative implementation of the sentence of the court. | 2009‑01‑28 22:33:40 | 2009 cases, Detailed summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Prison law cases, Transcript
|
| R (Brooke) v Parole Board [2008] EWCA Civ 29 — The Parole Board did not have the independence from the executive that was required for its judicial role in determining whether convicted prisoners should be released on licence. | 2008‑09‑21 17:24:07 | 2008 cases, Detailed summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Prison law cases, Transcript
|
| R (Evans) v Brockhill Prison [2000] UKHL 48 — False imprisonment. | 2008‑09‑12 15:54:47 | 2000 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
|
| R (Evans) v Brockhill Prison [1998] EWCA Civ 1042 — False imprisonment. | 2008‑09‑12 15:51:01 | 1998 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
|
| R (Evans) v Brockhill Prison [1997] EWHC Admin 544 — False imprisonment. | 2008‑09‑12 15:49:37 | 1997 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
|
| * Release date R (Evans) v Brockhill Prison [1996] EWHC Admin 234 — "These applications concern a third situation: where a defendant spends time in custody awaiting trial for more than one offence, and is on conviction sentenced to concurrent or overlapping terms of custody. To what extent is account to be taken, in assessing the term of custody to be served in pursuance of the sentence in that situation, of time spent in custody (otherwise than for some unrelated reason) before the sentences were imposed?" | 2008‑09‑12 15:48:16 | 1996 cases, Cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Prison law cases, Transcript, 1996 cases
|
| R (Page) v Secretary of State for Justice [2007] EWHC 2026 (Admin) — Prison law case. | 2008‑09‑12 15:44:09 | 2007 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
|
| R (Cawley) v Parole Board [2007] EWHC 2649 (Admin) — The portion of the delay in arranging a hearing which was attributable to the shortage of Parole Board members, a shortage not peculiar to this case, was unjustified under Article 5(4), but no order for damages would be made; the majority of the delay was the claimant's own fault. | 2008‑02‑22 22:35:19 | 2007 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Prison law cases, Transcript
|
| R (Brooke) v Parole Board [2007] EWHC 2036 (Admin) — The Parole Board lacks independence for the purposes of Article 5(4) ECHR because of the sponsorship relationship with the Ministry of Justice which is a party to its proceedings. | 2007‑09‑16 11:05:58 | 2007 cases, Detailed summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Prison law cases, Transcript
|
| R (Miah) v SSHD [2004] EWHC 2569 (Admin) — Criminal sentence continues after s47 (notional s37) transfer, and after discharge from section; as does any licence period and power to recall for breach. | 2007‑09‑13 21:54:33 | 2004 cases, Detailed summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Prison law cases, Transcript
|
| R (P) v SSHD [2003] EWHC 2953 (Admin) — The ECHR does not require joint MHRT/Parole Board hearings; the need for consecutive hearings does not breach Article 5(4). | 2007‑01‑28 16:17:40 | 2003 cases, Detailed summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Prison law cases, Transcript
|
Article titles
The following 43 pages are in this category.
R
- R (AB) v SSJ (2009) EWHC 2220 (Admin)
- R (Bary) v SSJ (2010) EWHC 587 (Admin)
- R (Bate) v Parole Board (2018) EWHC 2820 (Admin)
- R (Betteridge) v Parole Board (2009) EWHC 1638 (Admin)
- R (Black) v SSJ (2009) UKHL 1
- R (Brooke) v Parole Board (2007) EWHC 2036 (Admin)
- R (Brooke) v Parole Board (2008) EWCA Civ 29
- R (Cawley) v Parole Board (2007) EWHC 2649 (Admin)
- R (Cooper) v Parole Board (2007) EWHC 1292 (Admin)
- R (D) v SSHD (2002) EWHC 2805 (Admin)
- R (EG) v Parole Board (2020) EWHC 1457 (Admin)
- R (Evans) v Brockhill Prison (1996) EWHC Admin 234
- R (Evans) v Brockhill Prison (1997) EWHC Admin 544
- R (Evans) v Brockhill Prison (1998) EWCA Civ 1042
- R (Evans) v Brockhill Prison (2000) UKHL 48
- R (Faulkner) v SSJ (2009) EWHC 1507 (Admin)
- R (Faulkner) v SSJ (2010) EWCA Civ 1434
- R (Faulkner) v SSJ (2011) EWCA Civ 349
- R (Faulkner) v SSJ (2013) UKSC 23, (2013) MHLO 60
- R (Francis) v West Midlands Probation Board (2010) EWCA Civ 955
- R (Gill) v SSJ (2010) EWHC 364 (Admin)
- R (Gourlay) v Parole Board (2017) EWCA Civ 1003
- R (Guntrip) v Parole Board (2014) EWHC 4180 (Admin), (2014) MHLO 132
- R (Guntrip) v SSJ (2010) EWHC 3188 (Admin)
- R (Hall) v SSJ (2018) EWHC 1905 (Admin)
- R (James) v SSJ (2009) UKHL 22
- R (Johnson) v SSHD (2007) EWCA Civ 427
- R (Johnson) v SSJ (2009) EWHC 3336 (Admin)
- R (LV) v SSJ (2012) EWHC 3899 (Admin)
- R (LV) v SSJ (2013) EWCA Civ 1086
- R (LV) v SSJ (2014) EWHC 1495 (Admin)
- R (Mehmet) v SSJ (2009) EWHC 1202 (Admin)
- R (Miah) v SSHD (2004) EWHC 2569 (Admin)
- R (Noone) v HMP Drake Hall (2010) UKSC 30
- R (P) v SSHD (2003) EWHC 2953 (Admin)
- R (Page) v Secretary of State for Justice (2007) EWHC 2026 (Admin)
- R (Pennington) v Parole Board (2009) EWHC 2296 (Admin)
- R (S) v SSHD and Parole Board (2002) EWHC 2424 (Admin)
- R (Sturnham) v SSJ (2011) EWHC 938 (Admin)
- R v LV; R (LV) v SSJ (2015) EWCA Crim 45, (2015) EWCA Civ 56
- R v SSHD, ex p Leech (No 2) (1993) EWCA Civ 12
The following category (in the blue box) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: