Murray, R (on the application of) v Parole Board & Anor

Article 5(4) requires a speedy review of post-tariff detention. A temporary administrative system introduced to comply with a new legal requirement may adopt a gradual approach, provided its timetable is reasonable and directed towards compliance. Resource pressures do not by themselves justify delay, but the court may consider the practical demands of preparing reliable reports and arranging fair proceedings. A prisoner need not receive priority unless the circumstances are exceptional.

The claimant was serving a mandatory life sentence. After the European Court of Human Rights judgment in Stafford v United Kingdom [2002] 35 EHRR 1121, the Secretary of State introduced interim arrangements for reviewing mandatory life prisoners whose tariffs had expired. The claimant challenged a timetable under which his next Parole Board review would begin in May 2003 and, if an oral hearing was required, conclude in September or October 2003. The issue was whether the resulting period of about 15 months complied with Article 5(4).

1. Claim dismissed. The court declined to order an immediate Parole Board hearing. Leave to appeal was granted, and there was no order as to costs.
2. Following Stafford v United Kingdom [2002] 35 EHRR 1121, continued detention after expiry of the tariff depended on risk and dangerousness, requiring review under Article 5(4).
3. The timetable was assessed as a whole. It provided for disclosure, representations, paper consideration, a possible oral hearing, directions and preparation of further evidence.
4. The delay arose during the interim period needed to bring the system into compliance after Stafford. The claimant was not an exceptional case requiring him to leapfrog other prisoners. The arrangements were reasonable and aimed at preventing unjustified delay to others.
5. Noorkoiv v Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Parole Board [2002] EWCA Civ 779 was distinguishable because it concerned a planned listing system that itself produced non-compliant delay. The court relied on Waldon v Lichtenstein (Application no 33916/96) for the permissibility of a gradual but necessary approach to Convention compliance.

This was a first-instance judicial review in the Administrative Court. Leave to appeal was granted, but no appellate decision is stated.