View source for R (LV) v SSJ (2014) EWHC 1495 (Admin)

{{Case
|Date=2014/05/15
|NCN=[2014] EWHC 1495 (Admin)
|Other citations=[2014] MHLO 33
|Court=High Court (Administrative Court)
|Judges=Irwin
|Parties=LV, Secretary of State for Justice, Parole Board of England and Wales
|Judicial history first case=R (LV) v SSJ (2012) EWHC 3899 (Admin)
|Sentence=MHT/PB delay
|Summary="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."
|Subject=Deprivation of liberty, Prison law cases
|News=No
|RSS pubdate=2019/03/23 04:16:57 PM
}}