Wright v Lord Chancellor

An unlawful sentence does not automatically make the resulting detention unlawful under Article 5(1)(a). Detention pursuant to a sentence imposed by a competent court remains lawful unless the sentencing decision was made without jurisdiction, involved a gross and obvious procedural irregularity, lacked a statutory condition precedent, or was arbitrary through bad faith or a failure to attempt to apply the law correctly. A sentence passed in good faith but outside the statutory power will not ordinarily satisfy that high threshold. The ordinary remedy is an appeal. A claim under the Human Rights Act 1998 may also be barred where proceedings are brought outside the statutory limitation period and an extension is not equitable.

The claimant had been sentenced in the Crown Court to an unlawful extended sentence after an earlier sentence of imprisonment for public protection was varied. The Court of Appeal later quashed the sentences and imposed a determinate sentence: [2013] EWCA Crim 70. The claimant sought damages against the Lord Chancellor under sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, alleging that his detention under the flawed sentence breached Article 5 of the Convention.

The issues were whether the sentencing error placed the Crown Court outside its jurisdiction, involved a gross and obvious irregularity, resulted from failure to observe a statutory condition precedent, or made the detention arbitrary. The court also considered limitation and whether time should be extended.

The claim was dismissed. The sentence was unlawful in domestic law, but the detention was not thereby unlawful under Article 5(1)(a).

1. Jurisdiction. The Crown Court had jurisdiction to hear the case and impose sentence, including an extended sentence under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The fact that the sentence exceeded the statutory terms did not deprive the court of jurisdiction. The sentence remained effective unless varied or quashed on appeal.
2. Gross and obvious error. The authorities, including R (Bayliss) v Parole Board [2014] EWCA Civ 1631, established a high threshold. A sentence imposed in good faith, even if legally erroneous or outside the statutory limits, did not without more amount to a gross and obvious irregularity. The distinction between an unlawful sentence and an unreasonable exercise of sentencing discretion did not alter that conclusion.
3. Arbitrariness. The sentencing error did not show bad faith or a failure to attempt to apply the law correctly. The detention was therefore not arbitrary. The reasoning in Benham v United Kingdom (1996) 22 EHRR 293 and Mooren v Germany (2010) 50 EHRR 23 supported the distinction between detention under a prima facie valid order and detention under an ex facie invalid order.
4. Statutory condition precedent. No mandatory statutory condition precedent to the imposition of a custodial sentence had been omitted or breached.
5. Limitation. The proceedings were brought approximately six years after sentence. The claimant had access to an appeal, and the delay caused prejudice to the defendant. The correspondence relied upon did not amount to an agreement not to rely on limitation for the claim itself. In any event, the claim was statute-barred and an extension of time was not equitable.

The sentence had been passed by a competent court, within its jurisdiction, using due procedure and without arbitrariness. The claim therefore failed.

The judgment records that the claimant’s criminal appeal was allowed and the unlawful sentences were quashed by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), which imposed a determinate sentence of three years and six months: [2013] EWCA Crim 70. This High Court claim for Human Rights Act damages was dismissed.