Williams, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice & Anor

A delayed review under Article 5(4) does not, by itself, establish a breach where relevant arrangements continue to be made in the background. A claimant seeking damages for allegedly unlawful continued detention must establish that the delay caused the detention to continue. That requires evidence that suitable accommodation was available, or could have been made available, at the date when the review should have occurred. Where detention continued because no housing provider could provide accommodation meeting the assessed risk, geographical and support requirements, causation is not established.

The claimant had been recalled to prison after breaching the conditions of his release licence. The Parole Board directed that further consideration should be given to finding supported, non-hostel accommodation. A review scheduled for 4 October 2007 did not take place until 30 November 2007.

The claimant sought damages for alleged breaches of Articles 5(4) and 8, contending that the delay caused him to remain detained. The central issue was whether suitable accommodation was available, or could have been made available, on 4 October 2007.

1. The claim was dismissed. The claimant did not establish a breach of Article 5(4), and the Article 8 issue was no longer shown to require determination.
2. The fact that the review did not occur on its scheduled date did not itself constitute a breach of Article 5(4). The evidence showed that efforts to secure suitable accommodation were continuing, and the claimant was regarded as presenting an unacceptable risk without stable and supportive accommodation.
3. Even if there had been a breach, damages could only be recovered if the delay caused the continued detention. The claimant therefore had to show that suitable accommodation was available, or could have been made available, on 4 October 2007.
4. That requirement was not met. Although a housing provider had made a conditional offer and later accepted the Probation Service’s risk assessment, no tenancy was available on 4 October. Accommodation was not identified until December and was provided in January 2008.
5. The continued detention was caused by the absence of accommodation satisfying the claimant’s assessed risks, support needs and geographical preference, rather than by the failure to conduct the review by 4 October.