Ashford, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice

Periodic review of a life prisoner’s detention must occur at reasonable intervals for the purposes of Article 5(4) of the Convention. Where the interval exceeds one year, the justification requires more intensive examination. The court must determine for itself whether the review arrangements comply with Article 5(4), while giving due weight to the Parole Board’s and Secretary of State’s assessment of the prisoner’s circumstances. The review process must remain flexible and responsive to progress. A decision not to advance a provisional review date may be lawful where the prisoner has not yet demonstrated the behavioural, practical and resettlement skills required for release. Administrative or logistical difficulties cannot justify an excessive review period, but the period may be reasonable where it is supported by evidence and remains subject to continuing monitoring.

The claimant, a life prisoner serving a tariff of four years, sought judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision of 9 May 2008 refusing to advance his next provisional Parole Board review from March 2009 to October 2008. He relied on Article 5(4) of the Convention, contending that the interval between reviews was excessive and that he had made substantial progress in open conditions.

The Secretary of State relied on the claimant’s previous breaches, the need for one-to-one work, testing through temporary release, consolidation of thinking skills, and development of a release plan and resettlement skills. The central issue was whether the decision not to advance the review date was compatible with the continuing obligation under Article 5(4).

1. The application was dismissed. The decision of 9 May 2008 did not breach Article 5(4) of the Convention.
2. The legality of the original decision fixing a provisional review for March 2009 was not directly in issue. The issue was whether, in May 2008, the Secretary of State had lawfully maintained that date in light of the claimant’s continuing progress and Article 5(4) rights.
3. The periodic review system through the Parole Board is legitimate, but reviews must occur at reasonable intervals. What constitutes a speedy determination is fact-specific. An interval exceeding one year calls for more intensive examination of its justification. The court must decide for itself whether Article 5(4) has been breached, while giving due weight to the conclusions of the Parole Board and Secretary of State.
4. The review process includes continuing monitoring. A decision expressed to apply “at this stage” must remain open to reconsideration as circumstances develop. Administrative support or logistical difficulty cannot answer an established breach of Article 5(4).
5. In May 2008, the claimant had completed group cognitive-skills work but had not begun the recommended one-to-one work, had not established a release plan, and had not demonstrated a sustained period of employment. Temporary release was intended to test and consolidate his ability to respond appropriately in adverse community situations. The relevant consideration was the outcome of that testing, not merely whether it could have been arranged before an earlier review.
6. The Secretary of State had reviewed the relevant circumstances and relied on evidence that the claimant’s behavioural and social competence had not yet been demonstrated. The decision was therefore reasonable and justified on the evidence. The application for permission to appeal was refused because there was no realistic prospect of success; no evidence addressed the claimant’s position at the later date suggested after the hearing.

Not stated in the judgment.