R (Stott) v Secretary of State for Justice

The Supreme Court has handed down judgment in R (Stott) v Secretary of State for Justice [2018] UKSC 59.

Mr Stott had sought judicial review of his extended determinate sentence (“EDS”), on the basis that there was no justification for the difference in treatment in relation to eligibility for parole. A majority of the Supreme Court dismissed Mr Stott’s appeal, holding that the EDS scheme does not breach Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Right, read with Article 5.

On the issue of “other status”, a majority of the Court held that the difference in treatment of  EDS prisoners in relation to early release is a difference within the scope of Article 14, on the ground of “other status” (§§81, 185, 237).

On the issue of analogous situation and objective justification, a majority of the Court held that EDS prisoners are not in an analagous situation to other prisoners (§§155, 180, 195). However, even if they were any difference in treatment would be objectively justified (§§155, 180, 201).

A copy of the judgment is available here.

James Eadie QC and Jason Pobjoy acted for the Secretary of State for Justice.