View source for 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.]

==Related judgments==
[[R (Faulkner) v SSJ (2013) UKSC 23, (2013) MHLO 60]]
*[[R (Faulkner) v SSJ (2011) EWCA Civ 349]] (quantum)
**[[R (Faulkner) v SSJ (2010) EWCA Civ 1434]]
***[[R (Faulkner) v SSJ (2009) EWHC 1507 (Admin)]]

==External link==
{{#bailii:[2009] EWHC 1507 (Admin)}}


[[Category:Prison law cases]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2009 cases]]