The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a GPE national , who was born in DATE and currently being held in FAC . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , solicitor and Mr PERSON , barrister , practising in GPE .

On DATE , the applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment . The applicant and CARDINAL others had tied up an DATE woman during the course of a burglary ; she had died from strangulation . The offence had taken place TIME after drinking alcohol and he had substantial previous convictions including breach of the peace and assault .

In or DATE , the applicant was diagnosed as having nervous traits and persecutory delusions , which led him to spending some time in hospital .

In DATE , the applicant was released on licence . While on release , in DATE , he was the victim of a serious stabbing incident and then a witness in an attempted murder case . He received death threats and moved from GPE to GPE . The applicant stated that this had a significant impact on him ; he became depressed and dependent on alcohol and was diagnosed with post - traumatic stress disorder . This led to his admission to hospital . From hospital he was referred to an alcohol treatment unit for further treatment and counselling . He was discharged from the unit in DATE .

On DATE , after becoming aware that the applicant had been questioned by the police for CARDINAL separate offences of suspected robbery , burglary and assault , ORG revoked his licence and recalled him to prison . On DATE , he returned to prison .

In DATE , the applicant was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and affray ; he was acquitted of burglary .

In DATE , the applicant was transferred to a lifer - designated prison in GPE , his current prison , where he took advantage of course - work , including attending LOC meetings .

In DATE , ORG recommended his release to ORG , a complex of staffed , probation - approved , hostel - type accommodation . The Secretary of ORG accepted the recommendation .

On DATE , the applicant was released on licence on this basis .

On DATE , the applicant , now living at a hostel in GPE , was walking with his niece near to the hostel when he met CARDINAL of the other hostel residents ( a registered child abuser ) . According to the applicant , there was a minor altercation . The other resident reported to hostel staff that the applicant had assaulted him , breaking his dentures , and threatened to kill him . He was told to report the incident to the police , which he duly did and the applicant was arrested and remanded into custody .

On DATE , the applicant 's licence was revoked and he was formally recalled to prison . He denied any wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty when the charges came before the courts . In DATE , ORG dropped the charges .

In DATE , the applicant was released a third time .

On DATE , he returned to his hostel inebriated and before he could be interviewed , he left the hostel . The police were informed and ORG recommended immediate recall DATE . It had also been alleged that the applicant had repeatedly breached curfew at the hostel and that there had been an earlier incident in which he had returned drunk to the hostel .

On DATE , ORG decided not to recommend the applicant 's release but did recommend that his next review take place in DATE time to permit the development of a realistic release plan and the preparation of a psychiatric report .

On DATE , ORG considered his case again . It did not recommend release for the following reasons :

" The ORG concluded that there is evidence suggestive of a pattern of difficulty in coping with social stress and difficulty in complying with supervision requirements , together with alcohol abuse which has significance in the light of the circumstances of the index offence . Supervision is necessary both to support him and to manage risk . That he has difficulty in accepting this , as reported in the psychiatric assessment , was of concern to the panel since it reduces the capacity to manage risk , itself heightened by the possibility of disinhibition and poor judgment if he has recourse to alcohol .

There is opinion that the risk of re - offending violently is low . The ORG noted however his reported observation that , in the index offence , he acted without thought and did not foresee the consequences . The same clearly applies to behaviour and interractions , which in DATE has caused concern . Mr PERSON is said to assert that he had no problem with alcohol use and does not envisage getting into trouble when drinking . Though in his representations he states that he sees no problem in reasonable social drinking , he also accepts the psychologist 's comments and that he himself could identify nothing putting him at risk of future heavy drinking and that he needs to develop a relapse prevention plan . He himself notes in his representations that he assaulted an ambulance driver , whose role is of course to care for and assist others , when he had been drinking heavily .

Report writers are divided as to his suitability for release . Although the majority of those who make recommendations were in support of release , the panel had considered concern at his previous difficulty in complying with supervision conditions which , in the light of the risk factors described earlier , itself increases the risk . He had previously asserted that he would abstain from alcohol but did not . He now asserts that he will abide by supervisory requirements , but previously has not .

In all the circumstances the panel considers that his ability to comply requires further testing within an open establishment without which it can not be satisfied that the risk posed is yet compatible with release . In such an environment he will have the opportunity to demonstrate his taking of personal responsibility while complying with imposed requirement and a firm detailed release plan should be drawn up prior to his next review . "

It recommended that his next review take place DATE after his arrival .

On DATE , the applicant was transferred to an open prison . However the Secretary of ORG did not accept the recommended DATE gap in review , considering in his letter of DATE , that , for the reasons given by ORG , the applicant required DATE in open prison in order to be fully tested , assessed and prepared for release . The review process would therefore begin DATE after his transfer to open conditions .

On DATE , the applicant issued judicial review proceedings against the Secretary of ORG , alleging that the decision was unlawful , inter alia , as a DATE delay in review had been applied automatically , without due regard to his individual circumstances and the recommendation of ORG and was too long .

A psychiatric report dated DATE prepared following his arrival in the open prison stated inter alia that tests indicated a high probability of an alcohol dependence disorder , that he was likely to have other problems that put him at risk of re - offending and a tendency towards a negative and inappropriate / anti social decision making approach . The doctor expressed concern that his addictive behaviour patterns could prove problematic and recommended that he be referred to alcohol counsellors to formulate a relapse prevention plan . While it was noted that he had successfully completed a number of offending behaviour courses and shown increased awareness in these areas , it was essential that he build on this knowledge and actively applied it to his behaviour . It was recommended that he complete further work in the areas of perspective taking , decision making and coping skills and that his behaviour be carefully monitored in particular relationships with staff and prisoners .

On DATE , permission to apply for judicial review was granted .

On DATE , ORG rejected the applicant 's complaints .

On DATE , ORG rejected his appeal . It found that the period of DATE imposed by the Secretary of ORG was reasonable in the circumstances and not a mere mechanical application of policy . The decision about timing of reviews was not one which had to be taken by a court - like body but could be taken by the Secretary of ORG and was subject to judicial review in which the courts could assess in the particular case whether the requirement of speed in LAW had been complied with . As concerned the complaint about the delay set between reviews , it stated :

" The problem ... is that the EctHR has conspicuously declined to be prescriptive about the length of the detention period which would lead to a violation of LAW in the absence of a review ( see GPE ( App No CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) paras CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . GPE jurisprudence makes it clear that the question whether such periods comply with the LAW requirement must be determined in the light of the circumstances of each case ( GPE , para . CARDINAL ) and the evolving ORG principles ... follow the principles set out in that jurisprudence . It is therefore impossible to say on the particular facts of this case that , viewed prospectively , ORG DATE decision somehow or other violated Mr Spence 's Convention rights ... "

Legal aid for the purpose of petitioning ORG for permission to appeal was refused ; the appeal against the refusal was rejected on DATE .

Murder carries a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment under ORG DATE . At the time of sentence , a “ tariff ” is imposed which represents the minimum period that the prisoner will have to serve in order to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence . A life prisoner will not be released on licence until after the tariff period has been completed .

At the relevant time , LAW DATE provided in Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) :

“ If recommended to do so by the [ ORG , the Secretary of ORG may , after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice together with the trial judge if available , release on licence a life prisoner who is not a discretionary life prisoner . ”

In determining the principles of fairness that apply to the procedures governing the review of mandatory life sentences , the NORP courts have recognised that the mandatory sentence is , like the discretionary sentence , composed of both a punitive period ( “ the tariff ” ) and a security period . As regards the latter , detention is linked to the assessment of the prisoner 's risk to the public following the expiry of the tariff ( see for example , NORP v. ORG , ex parte Bradley ( ORG ) [ DATE ] CARDINAL WLRCARDINAL ; NORP v. ORG ex parte ORG ) [ DATE ] CARDINAL AllERCARDINAL ) .

Following the judgment in GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL-IV ) , the Secretary of ORG announced in ORG on DATE his decision to introduce interim measures applicable to the review and release of mandatory life sentence prisoners applicable to reviews from DATE . This allows for prisoners , whose tariff had expired , to apply for an oral hearing at which they may have representation , receive full disclosure of material relevant to the question of release and be able to examine and cross - examine witnesses .

“ If , at the end of the review process , ORG favours the release of a mandatory life sentence prisoner once the minimum period has been served the ORG Secretary will normally accept such a recommendation . ... ”

If ORG decides not to direct release , it frequently gives a recommendation as to the timing of the next review . That is only a recommendation and the decision whether to accept that recommendation is taken by the Secretary of ORG . If the prisoner seeks an earlier review , he can make representations to the Secretary of ORG , whose decision may be challenged by judicial review . The Secretary of ORG , of his own motion , can direct an earlier review .

The categorisation of prisoners is the function of the Secretary of ORG . There are CARDINAL categories of classification of prisoners , namely :

( i ) category A prisoners , whose escape would be highly dangerous to the public or to the police or to the security of the nation ;

( ii ) category B prisoners , for whom the very highest conditions of security are not necessary but for whom escape must be made very difficult ;

( iii ) category C prisoners , who can not be trusted in open conditions , but who do not have the ability or the resources to make a determined escape attempt ;

( iv ) category D prisoners , who can be trusted in open conditions .

On DATE the Secretary of ORG stated :

“ In DATE , successive Secretaries of ORG have recognised that , for the majority of life sentenced prisoners , a period in open prison conditions is generally vital in terms of testing the prisoner 's suitability for release and in preparing him for a successful return to the community . It is , therefore , now normally the practice to require the prisoner to spend some time in open conditions before release and to arrange a further review while the prisoner is in an open prison for a formal assessment of his or her progress . I intend to continue with this practice and the first ORG review will therefore normally serve the purpose of assessing the prisoner for open conditions . ”

On DATE the Secretary of ORG stated :

“ ... the first ORG review in the case of a life sentenced prisoner begins DATE before the expiry of tariff . The purpose of this review is normally to enable the prisoner to be assessed for , and , where appropriate , transferred to , open conditions ( category D ) where he or she may be tested in conditions of lower security , fully assessed by staff and prepared for release . A further ORG review is then held to determine whether the level of risk is low enough to enable the prisoner to be safely released on life licence . Where the level of risk is considered to be acceptable , the objective is to release the prisoner on or very shortly after tariff expiry . ”

A direction to ORG from the Secretary of ORG under section CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE ( which preceded ORG ) stated :

“ A period in open conditions is essential for most life sentence prisoners ( “ lifers ” ) . It allows the testing of areas of concern in conditions which are nearer to those in the community than can be found in closed prisons . Lifers have the opportunity to take home leave from open prisons and , more generally , open conditions require them to take more responsibility for their actions . ”


The applicant is a NORP national , born in DATE . He is currently serving a prison sentence in Żytkowice prison .

In DATE the applicant , who was then serving a prison sentence , had an occupational accident as a result of which he was seriously scalded . In DATE a competent medical board assessed his disability as being of first degree ( serious ) , and ORG authorities paid him compensation and granted disability pension . In DATE ORG awarded him compensation for non - pecuniary damage and a DATE disability pension to be paid by the plant in which the accident had occurred . In DATE the applicant reached a court settlement in the proceedings against the plant in which he had claimed compensation for pecuniary damage and an increase of his pension .

After the accident the applicant underwent long treatment in various hospitals , apparently serving at the same time his numerous prison sentences . In particular , he underwent various surgeries in , inter alia , ORG in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and twice in DATE , in order to alleviate the long - term consequences of his accident .

In DATE a medical panel at FAC Mokotów Prison recommended that the applicant should undergo a further treatment in the ORG hospital specialised in hand surgery .

On DATE the applicant was informed by ORG of the ORG that a date for a consultation had been fixed for DATE .

On DATE the applicant requested a penitentiary court to grant him a temporary release on health grounds . Apparently later this request was refused .

On DATE the applicant underwent an isotopic scintigraphy of kidneys in the ORG which showed that the function of his right kidney was badly impaired .

In a letter of DATE the ORG informed the applicant that , following his complaint , an enquiry had been made in respect of his medical treatment in prison . It had been established that the medical panel of ORG hospital and a specialist in surgery had found that the applicant had been suffering , following his DATE accident , from a so - called stiff hand syndrome which could be further treated by the prison health system . The applicant had subsequently been transferred to a special ward of PERSON prison for detainees with health problems . Thus , there were no grounds on which to accept that the applicant had been deprived of adequate medical care .

On DATE the ORG discontinued the investigation of the applicant ’s complaint that the president of the medical panel of ORG hospital had forged certain of his medical documents , finding that in fact no documents had been forged and no criminal offence had been committed .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE , in reply to the applicant ’s complaint about a refusal to grant him a temporary release , the ORG informed him that he could not exert any pressure on independent courts , including penitentiary ones , in order to obtain a decision . It also drew the applicant ’s attention to the fact that the courts , when considering his requests for release on health grounds , would have regard to his refusals to give consent to medical treatment by the prison medical services .

In DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG , with a view to an admission to the ORG hospital for a further operation of his hand . After he was admitted , he refused to give consent to surgery and demanded a temporary release in order to undergo treatment in a civil medical institution .

On DATE the ORG , having regard to the medical expert opinion of CARDINAL DATE , drawn up by a medical panel of FAC hospital , refused to allow the applicant ’s request for a temporary release . The court found that the applicant had had a number of surgeries to alleviate the problems caused by the DATE accident , and that a further progress in his rehabilitation by way of further surgeries was unlikely . The court observed that , in any event , the applicant had refused to give his consent to a further operation . The court considered that no evidence supported the applicant ’s dramatic complaints about the alleged failure on the part of the prison medical services to treat him adequately . The court finally noted that the applicant had already been temporarily released several times , inter alia in DATE , DATE and DATE , and that , while at liberty , he had not only committed further offences , but he had also failed to report to the plastic surgery hospital for an operation in accordance with the previously made arrangements . The court concluded that there was no guarantee that , if released , the applicant would comply with the medical recommendations and that , in any event , his condition did not require such special treatment which could not have been provided by prison medical services .

On DATE the ORG , sitting in a panel of CARDINAL judges as an appellate court in the proceedings concerning appeals against decisions taken by a single judge of that court , dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the refusal to grant him a temporary release of DATE . The court considered that the applicant disputed the reasonableness of the medical recommendations without advancing any sound arguments to support his position . The court further considered that the lower court had not committed any errors in establishing the relevant facts of the case on the basis of a decision of the medical expert opinion of CARDINAL DATE , drawn up by the medical panel of PERSON prison hospital , and having regard to the opinion of the authorities of PERSON prison of DATE .

In a letter of DATE ORG informed the applicant that his voluminous medical records had been examined by ORG and that his allegations did not find any support in the documents contained therein .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE , ORG again informed the applicant that his complaints regarding the medical care , which he had been receiving in LOC , were unfounded . In particular , in DATE the applicant had been examined by specialists who had proposed a further operation of his hand in ORG . After the applicant had been transferred to GPE in time for the operation scheduled for DATE , he refused to give his consent therefor . It was further stressed in the letter that the applicant was under a continuous general and specialised medical care , and that it was only his persistent refusal to co - operate with the medical services which caused the lack of any tangible clinical results .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim for compensation against ORG and ORG for the alleged negligence in providing him with adequate medical treatment .

The applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment , arguing that the court had failed to establish all the circumstances relevant for the adjudication of his claim . In particular , the court had not made sufficient findings as to the reasons for which the applicant had been refused permission to undergo a treatment outside of the prison medical services .

From DATE to DATE the applicant underwent treatment for his renal problems in the urology department of FAC hospital . It was established that he was suffering from urolithiasis and cirrhosis of the right kidney and of certain weakening of the functioning of left kidney . Throughout his stay in the hospital he was receiving medicines in order to alleviate symptoms of urolithiasis . As he suffered from cirrhosis , it was decided that an operation in order to remove calcium deposits in the right kidney was not called for . He was also consulted by an orthopaedist , who indicated that in view of the applicant ’s problems which could not be alleviated by re - habilitation , he should undergo , as soon as possible , a surgery to remove a certain osseous deformation of his hand . Another operation of his hand to remove a metallic device put into it during the past treatment was recommended and could be carried out in FAC .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the judgment of DATE .

In a letter of DATE ORG , in reply to the applicant ’s complaints of CARDINAL DATE and DATE about the allegedly inadequate medical care in respect of his renal problems , informed him that , in the light of the analysis of the applicant ’s medical records , his complaints proved unfounded .

In a further undated letter in reply to a new complaint by the applicant , ORG reiterated that his complaints about the allegedly inadequate medical care were unjustified , in particular in the light of a medical expert opinion of an urologist who , following the applicant ’s complaints , had examined his medical files , assessed the treatment which he had been receiving and found no indication of any irregularities or negligence on the part of the prison medical services .

On DATE ORG stayed the proceedings relating to the applicant ’s request to institute criminal proceedings against persons responsible for an alleged failure to ensure adequate treatment of his renal problems during the applicant ’s detention in FAC from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . The prosecutor observed that medical experts from ORG had been appointed in order to examine the applicant ’s medical records in this respect and that their report , in view of their workload , could be ready only in DATE . This constituted a long - term obstacle to completing the investigations such as to justify the staying of the proceedings .

On DATE ORG refused to allow the applicant ’s further request for a temporary release on health grounds . The court had regard to a decision of the medical panel of LOC hospital of DATE , which indicated that there were no medical reasons calling for his release and that his condition could be treated in prison , despite the applicant ’s repeated and unjustified refusals .

In reply to the applicant ’s fresh complaint about the allegedly poor quality of medical care afforded to him in FAC , FAC , in a letter of DATE , indicated that an internal enquiry following his complaint had not confirmed his allegations . The applicant was under continuous medical care , and was attended by doctors when he so requested . As he had repeatedly refused to consent to a surgical removal of his right kidney , an intervention that could easily be carried on by the prison medical services , he could not be operated on . The applicant ’s condition did not entail any danger to his life , and if a need of treatment arose , he could be admitted to and treated in a prison hospital . In sum , his complaints were disproportionate to the actual state of his health .