View source for IH v UK 17111/04 (2005)

''The delay following the deferred conditional discharge decision did not breach Article 5(1), since if no psychiatric supervision could be found then continued detention was the only option, [[Johnson v UK 22520/93 (1997) ECHR 88]] distinguished; the House of Lords had been right in concluding that the Tribunal's inability to reconsider the case in light of the inability to achieve the conditions disclosed a breach of Article 5(4); however, since the domestic court had acknowledged the breach, IH was no longer a "victim" of a violation of Article 5(4); therefore no issues arose under Article 5(5) and, in any event, there is no absolute right to compensation, and the Lords' decision not to award damages was not arbitrary or unreasonable. The application was inadmissible.''

==External link==
[http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/search.asp?skin=hudoc-en ECtHR HUDOC website] - search for 17111/04 under Admissibility Decisions  

[[Media:IH_v_UK.doc|IH v UK 17111/04 (2005) - Word document]] - from HUDOC website


[[Category:Deprivation of liberty]]
[[Category:ECHR]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2005 cases]]