View source for IH v UK 17111/04 (2005) ECHR 934

''The claimant was granted a deferred conditional discharge but subsequently not released as no supervising psychiatrist could be found; the House of Lords found that [[Article 5]](4) had been breached as the Tribunal could not revisit their decision (as the law was then understood). The claimant's Article 5(1)(e) complaint was rejected (on the facts, the alternative to conditional discharge was continued detention rather than absolute discharge), as were his complaints under Article 5(4) (no longer a victim as domestic courts had acknowledged breach and afforded appropriate redress) and Article 5(5) (no longer a victim, no absolute right to compensation).''

==Another summary==
This was from an older (duplicate) page from before the case had a neutral citation number:

''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.''

==Related judgments==
[[IH v UK 17111/04 (2005) ECHR 934]]

*[[R (IH) v SSHD (2003) UKHL 59]]

:* [[R (IH) v SSHD (2002) EWCA Civ 646]].

==External link==
{{#bailii:[2005] ECHR 934}}


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