View source for R (Degainis) v SSJ (2010) EWHC 137 (Admin)

''In relation to a 7-month delay in holding a Parole Board hearing, the SSJ admitted breach of [[Article 5]](4) and apologised, but the claimant sought damages under Article 5(5). (1) Article 5(5) (which gives an "enforceable right to compensation") and s8 [[HRA 1998]] (which limits the power to award damages) are not inconsistent because compensation in Article 5(5) is not limited to money. (2) The first of two grounds for the claim was that the delay increased the length of detention: because of the number of imponderables in the case it was impossible to conclude this. (3) The second ground was based on an inference that frustration and anxiety had been caused: the judge was not prepared to infer, in the absence of specific evidence, a level of frustration of distress sufficient to warrant an award of damages. (4) In general, as to whether or not to award damages, the length of the delay, the effect of the delay, and the impact on the claimant are relevant factors; the seriousness of the original offence is not.''

==Notes==
Re point 3 above - see [[R (KB) v MHRT (2003) EWHC 193 (Admin)]]

Re point 4 above - see R (Downing) v Parole Board [2008] EWHC 3198 (Admin)

==ICLR==
{{ICLR|R (Degainis) v SSJ (2010) EWHC 137 (Admin)}}

==External link==
{{#bailii:[2010] EWHC 137 (Admin)}}

[http://www.lawreports.co.uk/WLRD/2010/QBD/R%28Degainis%29_v_SSJ.html Case report on ICLR website]


[[Category:Deprivation of liberty]]
[[Category:Tribunal delay]]
[[Category:Detailed summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2010 cases]]