R (Haney, Kaiyam, Massey and Robinson) v Secretary of State for Justice

These four expedited appeals concerned claims brought by indeterminate-sentence prisoners alleging breaches of their rights under Article 5(1) and Article 14 of the ECHR by reason of a failure to afford them sufficient opportunities for rehabilitation prior to the expiry of their tariff periods.

In a judgment that may have wider significance, the Supreme Court has, in determining the Article 5(1) claims, declined to follow both the reasoning of (1) the House of Lords in R (James) v Secretary of State for Justice [2010] 1 AC 553); and (2) the European Court of Human Rights in James v UK (2012) 56 EHRR 399, which had disapproved of the earlier judgment of the House of Lords. The Supreme Court has instead decided to adopt an independent construction of Article 5 ECHR, holding that there is a duty implicit in the scheme of Article 5 to provide a prisoner with a reasonable opportunity for rehabilitation, breach of which sounds only in damages and does not render detention unlawful. 

In rejecting Mr Haney’s claim for breach of Article 14 ECHR, the Supreme Court considered it was unnecessary to decide whether the decision of the House of Lords in R (Clift) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] 1 AC 484 concerning the scope of protected status for the purposes of a discrimination claim, should now be overruled in favour of the contrary decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Clift v UK (Application No. 7205/07).

A copy of the judgment can be found here: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2014/66.html

James Eadie QC, Hanif Mussa and David Lowe acted for the Secretary of State in the Supreme Court.

Tom Weisselberg QC and Hanif Mussa acted for the Secretary of State at earlier stages in the proceedings.