ECHR rules on indeterminate sentences

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has given its Chamber judgment in the case of James, Wells and Lee v. the United Kingdom.

The case concerned three prisoners who were subject to indeterminate sentences of imprisonment for the public's protection as a result of their convictions for violent offences and in the light of their offending histories.

They were recommended to take part in a number of rehabilitative courses, however, by the time their respective tariffs expired, all three applicants remained in their local prisons, without access to the relevant courses, awaiting transfer to first stage lifer prisons to begin progressing through the prison system. They were only transferred five months (Mr James), 21 months (Mr Wells) and 25 months (Mr Lee) after the expiry of their tariffs.

Meanwhile, all three men brought judicial review proceedings before the national courts, which were eventually joined on appeal before the House of Lords. They complained in particular that their post-tariff detention and lack of access to courses was unlawful and in breach of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the European Convention.

The case eventually made its way to the ECHR, which has now held:

• unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the applicants’ detention following the expiry of their tariff periods and until steps had been taken to progress them through the prison system with a view to their access to appropriate rehabilitative courses; and,
• by six votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) concerning Mr Wells’ and Mr Lee’s complaint about the possibility of their release.

The Court found in particular that the considerable delays in the applicants making any progress in their sentences had been the result of lack of resources, planning and realistic consideration of the impact of the sentencing scheme introduced in 2005, despite the fact that it had been premised on the understanding that rehabilitative treatment would be made available to those prisoners concerned.

Indeed, these deficiencies had been the subject of universal criticism in the domestic courts and had resulted in a finding that the Secretary of State had breached his public law duty.