Wells, R (on the application of) v Parole Board

Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights creates a freestanding right to a speedy hearing determining the lawfulness of detention. Whether a hearing is speedy is fact-sensitive and depends on the circumstances of the individual case. Administrative pressures and a general backlog do not provide a complete answer where delay is unrelated to the nature or difficulty of the case. A listing system may use administrative staff, provided it contains sufficient flexibility to identify exceptional cases and permits judicial consideration where necessary. A prisoner is not entitled to automatic judicial-member consideration of every request for expedition.

The claimant, an indeterminate sentence prisoner who had served his minimum term, sought judicial review of the Parole Board’s failure to prioritise his next parole hearing. His first review had concluded that detention remained necessary, and a further review intended for February 2009 was delayed. The claimant alleged breach of Article 5(4) and challenged the Board’s listing framework, arguing that prioritisation decisions should be made by a judicial member.

The Board relied on its substantial backlog, its new prioritisation framework and steps taken under the Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2009. The issues were whether the delay breached Article 5(4), whether the listing policy was lawful, and what relief should be granted.

1. Article 5(4). Article 5(4) provides a freestanding right to a speedy hearing determining whether detention remains lawful. The requirement is fact-sensitive. The relevant question is why the delay occurred and how the circumstances of the individual prisoner affected the need for expedition.
2. The claimant had been told that his further review would be concluded by February 2009, later revised to May 2009. In the context of his short minimum term and the period already elapsed, the delay in listing was not sufficiently related to the nature or difficulty of his case. It therefore breached Article 5(4). The fact that the claimant was a post-tariff prisoner did not justify greater latitude.
3. Listing policy. A system for allocating hearings need not require a judicial member to assess every case or every request for expedition. The current framework provided flexibility where special circumstances were advanced and allowed recourse to a judicial member where necessary. It was not an exclusive policy requiring administrative staff to make the final judicial assessment. The framework was therefore lawful and was properly operated in this case. The claimant’s evidence did not make his case sufficiently exceptional to require different treatment.
4. The court declined to order that the claimant’s case be prioritised. No separate declaration was necessary because the judgment itself identified the Article 5(4) breach. No damages were awarded. Permission to bring judicial review proceedings was granted, but on the substantive claim the court made no order. Permission to appeal was refused for lack of a realistic prospect of success. There was no order as to costs, subject to detailed assessment of the claimant’s publicly funded costs.