PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 40787/98) against the United Kingdom lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a British national, Mr John Hirst (“the applicant”), on 1 February 1998.

The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Hickman and Rose, solicitors practising in London. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Huw Llewellyn of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

The applicant alleged that there had been undue delay between the reviews by the Parole Board of his continued detention as a prisoner serving a sentence of discretionary life imprisonment. He invoked Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.

The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11). The application was allocated to the Third Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1 of the Rules of Court.

By a decision of 21 March 2000, the Chamber declared the application partly admissible.

Neither party filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1). The Chamber decided, after consulting the parties, that no hearing on the merits was required (Rule 59 § 2 in fine).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

On 11 February 1980, the applicant pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the ground of diminished responsibility in respect of the death of his 62‑year-old landlady whom he had battered with an axe. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. The court acted on medical evidence that the applicant had a gross personality disorder to such a degree that he was amoral. The consultant psychiatrist said in his report at the trial that: “... although [the applicant’s] instability might get less over the years as he matured, should he be sent to prison, his eventual release should be approached with great caution.”

The applicant was initially sent to a Category A prison due to concerns about his dangerousness and risk of escape. He was involved in work to address his offending and other problems. He successfully completed an Anger Management and Skills Courts in the Hull Special Unit in or about 1989 and his conduct was noted as significantly improving from that point. In 1993, he was transferred to a Category B prison.

The applicant’s tariff period of 15 years expired on 25 June 1994 (this was the minimum period fixed by the Secretary of State concerning the requirements of retribution and deterrence). The Parole Board in that month agreed to the transfer of the applicant from a Category B to Category C prison. The Secretary of State deferred a decision until after the Discretionary Lifer Panel (DLP) of the Parole Board had conducted a hearing on the matter under the new provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (“the 1991 Act”).

On 13 December 1994, after a hearing held pursuant to section 34 of the 1991 Act, the DLP decided it would not be safe to release the applicant but recommended transfer to Category D (open prison), or Category C with a review after 12 months instead of the usual two year period. On 15 March 1995, the Secretary of State decided to transfer the applicant to Category C with a review after 12 months.

In November 1995, the applicant failed to obtain leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the DLP and the decision of the Secretary of State. In April 1996, the Court of Appeal refused leave to apply for judicial review.

Following a positive drugs test, the applicant agreed to follow and successfully completed in July 1996 a drugs awareness course.

On 9 October 1996, the applicant’s case came before another DLP. Reports noted that he had made considerable progress over the preceding six years but would need phased re-introduction into society. A psychiatric report dated 24 June 1996 stated that the applicant had much greater control over his behaviour, that personal and maturational developments had taken place and that he was not the same person that he was when he entered prison. It was concluded that the applicant, who had shown a reclusiveness and narrowness of interests, needed however to test and increase his social interaction in order to be able to cope with living outside prison. A psychiatric report issued about the same time stated that the applicant’s personality, described as psychopathic, had shown some capacity for change and that, although he was not considered a serious risk to the public, any release on licence would have to be carefully planned, as problems were likely to arise following a long period of institutionalisation and a lack of family support. The DLP did not recommend release but transfer to a Category D prison. In paragraph 5 of the decision letter the DLP said: “The panel were satisfied that what was advanced at the hearing as ‘exceptional circumstances’, namely a good release plan, the fact that [the applicant is] four years beyond tariff, the fact that [the applicant has] completed a pre-release course in Category C, the fact that [the applicant had] previously been recommended for Category D status and the prospect of employment, did not amount to exceptional circumstances and that [the applicant’s] release without progress through open conditions posed an unacceptable risk.”

On 20 November 1996, the Secretary of State rejected the recommendation of transfer to an open prison, but directed an early review of the applicant’s case, namely after 18 months had expired from 9 October 1996. The Secretary of State was not persuaded that the applicant’s behavioural problems had been satisfactorily addressed while in closed conditions, nor that the benefits of open conditions were sufficiently worthwhile at that stage when balanced against the scale of the outstanding offence, related work needed in the applicant’s case and his potential risk to the public.

The applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review of both decisions, alleging inter alia that the DLP had wrongly applied an “exceptional circumstances” test. Leave was refused on 11 April 1997.

On 21 October 1997, the applicant re-applied for leave for judicial review. Mr Justice Potts refused leave against the DLP’s recommendation. He found that the DLP had correctly applied the statutory test concerning a risk to the public. He granted leave to apply in respect of the decision of the Secretary of State. Mr Justice Potts stated: “... a prisoner who has spent a long period in custody should be tested in open conditions before being released into the community: satisfactory completion of such testing is an indication that a prisoner is able to cope with the stresses of life outside prison and is therefore a cogent factor to take into account against all the other available material in deciding whether or not a prisoner can safely be released. Such an approach is undoubtedly sensible … I think it is arguable that the Secretary of State’s decision not to recategorise this applicant as a Category D prisoner was irrational and one that no reasonable Home Secretary could reasonably have reached.”

In the light of this grant of leave, at the end of the hearing, the Secretary of State indicated that he would reconsider his decision of 20 November 1997.

On 13 March 1998, the Secretary of State informed the applicant that he had reconsidered the case but decided not to change his conclusion that the applicant should not be transferred to open conditions.

On 15 July 1998, the DLP again considered the applicant’s case. Reports continued to note his progress, including the expression of genuine remorse for his offending. It was considered in a case officer report dated 31 October 1997 that he had taken advantage of treatment programmes and that all offending work had been completed. He had a “settled and fulfilling release plan” which involved him continuing the legal studies that he had commenced in prison and receiving support from a circle of friends that he had built up through contacts outside prison. Conversely, a psychiatric report dated 18 December 1997 considered inter alia that the applicant might benefit from further work on developing methods of dealing with interpersonal difficulties and increasing relationship skills.

By letter dated 16 July 1998, the DLP declined to recommend release but did recommend transfer to a Category D (open) prison. “3. In reaching the decision that you are not yet suitable for release, the panel took into account the nature of the index offence, your violent disruptive early prison career (while recognising also the absence of any violence since 1989), the fact that you are still seen as having a psychopathic personality … and the remaining areas of concern identified by [Mrs B, a higher psychologist]… These areas of concern are egocentricity, a disregard for the points of view of other people and a limited ability to solve interpersonal frustrations and problems. The panel also considered that the sexual ambivalence referred to by [Dr G] merited further investigation, particularly in light of evidence that emerged at the panel hearing that you had been sexually abused in your youth. The panel also accepted [Mrs B’s] evidence that a personality assessment was necessary to identify the manner in which the outstanding offence-related work should be carried out; and that the reasons underlying the index offence still require further investigation. In all these circumstances, the panel considered that you still presented too great a risk to the public to justify your release.

Moreover, you have been in custody for 19 years and although your release plan is being developed, it is not complete. At present you would have no fixed accommodation. Based on these factors and the impression the panel formed of you at the hearing, the panel considered that you would be unable to cope in the community, were you to be released directly or via a pre-release employment scheme.

The panel did recommend that you be transferred to open conditions. In coming to this conclusion, the panel took into account the length of time you have spent in custody, the opinion of the majority of the report writers and witnesses that the risk you present to the public could be safely managed in open conditions and the fact that the assessment and further work referred to above can be done in open conditions. The panel also took into account that [Mrs B] could not say within what period the assessment could be carried out, and the danger of counter-productive stagnation and frustration on your part should you have to spend a further protracted period in category ‘C’ conditions.

To allow time for assessment and the necessary offence-related work and for your gradual reintegration into the community, the panel considered that your next review should begin in 2 years time.”

By letter dated 7 October 1998, the Secretary of State rejected the DLP’s recommendation. He stated that he accepted the psychologist’s view that further work needed to be done in respect of the applicant’s attitude to his original offence, his egocentricity, his intolerance of others, his inability to deal adequately with problems and his lack of responsibility for his actions. He agreed that a full personality assessment was required of the applicant who was still seen as having a psychopathic personality. The Secretary of State did not agree that these matters could be safely addressed in open prison conditions. He noted that the applicant had failed to attend further courses in anger management, social skills and communications, as arranged after the Secretary of State’s decision of 20 November 1996. He also had regard to an intervening incident which had occurred on 31 July 1998 when the applicant was being escorted to court by a female officer. After she had refused to allow him to smoke in the vehicle, he had slammed the van door against her, causing her to fall and hurt her arm. He had sworn at her, threatening to kill her, adding that he had already killed one woman. The applicant was found guilty under the Prison Rules of assault and using threatening, abusive or insulting words. The Secretary of State considered that this disclosed impulsive violent behaviour towards a woman over a trivial incident, which had clear similarities with his original offence. He remained an unacceptable risk and was advised that until he co-operated with staff in addressing the areas of concern, the Secretary of State saw no justification in allowing him to progress further towards release. It was however agreed that his next review should take place in July 2000.

On 2 February 2000, the applicant’s renewed application for leave to judicially review the DLP’s decision of October 1996, which had been dormant since 21 October 1997, was listed for hearing before the Court of Appeal. The applicant’s request to amend his grounds of application to add complaints about a lack of independence was refused. The Court of Appeal rejected his application for leave to apply for judicial review.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e1
001-59607_a8_em1
CODE
DIRECT
40787/98
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e2
001-59607_a8_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e3
001-59607_a8_em3
DEM
NO_MASK
British
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e4
001-59607_a8_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr John Hirst
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e5
001-59607_a8_em5
DATETIME
QUASI
1 February 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e6
001-59607_a8_em6
PERSON
QUASI
Hickman
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e7
001-59607_a8_em7
PERSON
QUASI
Rose
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e8
001-59607_a8_em8
LOC
NO_MASK
London
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e9
001-59607_a8_em9
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e10
001-59607_a8_em10
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Huw Llewellyn
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e11
001-59607_a8_em11
ORG
NO_MASK
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e12
001-59607_a8_em12
ORG
NO_MASK
Parole Board
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e13
001-59607_a8_em13
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1 November 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e14
001-59607_a8_em14
DATETIME
QUASI
21 March 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e15
001-59607_a8_em15
DATETIME
QUASI
11 February 1980
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-59607_a8_e16
001-59607_a8_em16
DEM
NO_MASK
62‑year-old
HEALTH
insert
001-59607_a8_e17
001-59607_a8_em17
DEM
QUASI
personality disorder
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-59607_a8_e18
001-59607_a8_em18
DATETIME
QUASI
1989
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e19
001-59607_a8_em19
DATETIME
QUASI
1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e20
001-59607_a8_em20
DATETIME
NO_MASK
15 years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e21
001-59607_a8_em21
DATETIME
QUASI
25 June 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e12
001-59607_a8_em22
ORG
NO_MASK
Parole Board
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-59607_a8_e22
001-59607_a8_em23
ORG
NO_MASK
Discretionary Lifer Panel (DLP)
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e12
001-59607_a8_em24
ORG
NO_MASK
Parole Board
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e23
001-59607_a8_em25
DATETIME
QUASI
13 December 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-59607_a8_e22
001-59607_a8_em26
ORG
NO_MASK
001-59607_a8_em23
DLP
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e24
001-59607_a8_em27
DATETIME
NO_MASK
12 months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e25
001-59607_a8_em28
DATETIME
NO_MASK
two year
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e26
001-59607_a8_em29
DATETIME
QUASI
15 March 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e24
001-59607_a8_em30
DATETIME
NO_MASK
12 months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e27
001-59607_a8_em31
DATETIME
QUASI
November 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e22
001-59607_a8_em32
ORG
NO_MASK
DLP
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e28
001-59607_a8_em33
DATETIME
QUASI
April 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e29
001-59607_a8_em34
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e30
001-59607_a8_em35
DATETIME
QUASI
July 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e31
001-59607_a8_em36
DATETIME
QUASI
9 October 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e22
001-59607_a8_em37
ORG
NO_MASK
DLP
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-59607_a8_e32
001-59607_a8_em38
DATETIME
NO_MASK
six years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e33
001-59607_a8_em39
DATETIME
QUASI
24 June 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e22
001-59607_a8_em40
ORG
NO_MASK
DLP
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e22
001-59607_a8_em41
ORG
NO_MASK
DLP
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e34
001-59607_a8_em42
DATETIME
NO_MASK
four years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e35
001-59607_a8_em43
DATETIME
QUASI
20 November 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e36
001-59607_a8_em44
DATETIME
NO_MASK
18 months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e31
001-59607_a8_em45
DATETIME
QUASI
9 October 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e22
001-59607_a8_em46
ORG
NO_MASK
DLP
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e37
001-59607_a8_em47
DATETIME
QUASI
11 April 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e38
001-59607_a8_em48
DATETIME
QUASI
21 October 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-59607_a8_e39
001-59607_a8_em49
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Justice Potts
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e22
001-59607_a8_em50
ORG
NO_MASK
DLP
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e22
001-59607_a8_em51
ORG
NO_MASK
DLP
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e39
001-59607_a8_em52
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Justice Potts
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e40
001-59607_a8_em53
DATETIME
QUASI
20 November 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e41
001-59607_a8_em54
DATETIME
QUASI
13 March 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e42
001-59607_a8_em55
DATETIME
QUASI
15 July 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e22
001-59607_a8_em56
ORG
NO_MASK
DLP
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e43
001-59607_a8_em57
DATETIME
QUASI
31 October 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e44
001-59607_a8_em58
DATETIME
QUASI
18 December 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e45
001-59607_a8_em59
DATETIME
QUASI
16 July 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e22
001-59607_a8_em60
ORG
NO_MASK
DLP
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e18
001-59607_a8_em61
DATETIME
QUASI
1989
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-59607_a8_e46
001-59607_a8_em62
PERSON
QUASI
Mrs B
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-59607_a8_e47
001-59607_a8_em63
PERSON
QUASI
Dr G
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e48
001-59607_a8_em64
PERSON
QUASI
Mrs B’s
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e49
001-59607_a8_em65
DATETIME
QUASI
19 years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e46
001-59607_a8_em66
PERSON
QUASI
Mrs B
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e50
001-59607_a8_em67
DATETIME
NO_MASK
2 years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e51
001-59607_a8_em68
DATETIME
QUASI
7 October 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e22
001-59607_a8_em69
ORG
NO_MASK
DLP
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e35
001-59607_a8_em70
DATETIME
QUASI
20 November 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e52
001-59607_a8_em71
DATETIME
QUASI
31 July 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e53
001-59607_a8_em72
DATETIME
QUASI
July 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e54
001-59607_a8_em73
DATETIME
QUASI
2 February 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e22
001-59607_a8_em74
ORG
NO_MASK
DLP
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e55
001-59607_a8_em75
DATETIME
QUASI
October 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e38
001-59607_a8_em76
DATETIME
QUASI
21 October 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e29
001-59607_a8_em77
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59607_a8_e29
001-59607_a8_em78
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
John Hirst
GBR
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: John Hirst