10 -
9787/82
35.
The applicant's case was considered by the Parole Board in December 1977. The Board took the view that the applicant was still a danger to himself and to the public and confirmed his recall. They recommended that the case be referred to the local review committee, the first stage of a formal review by the Parole Board, in December 1978. The Parole Board considered the case again in May 1979 when it recommended that he be released on licence once more. The Home Secretary, after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge did not accept the Parole Board's recommendation and decided that the applicant should be transferred to an open prison. In November 1979 he absconded from the open prison to Spain, surrendering himself to the police in April 1980. In May 1981 the Parole Board recommended that the applicant be released on licence as soon as resettlement arrangements could be made. The Home Secretary accepted this recommendation and decided upon a provisional release date of February 1982, subject to pre-release employment at Maidstone Prison Hostel. However in October 1981 he was involved in a violent struggle with the hostel wardens during which one officer was injured on the thumb with a knife. On 28 October 1981 he was found guilty of the offence of malicious wounding at Maidstone Magistrate's Court and sentenced to three months' imprisonment.
36. In December 1981 the case was again referred to the Parole Board who recommended that preparation should be made for the applicant to be released directly from prison to a hostel. He is presently living in Maidstone under the close supervision of a probation officer.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
THE APPLICANT
Article 5(1)(a)
37. It is submitted that for the detention to be "lawful" within the meaning of Art. 5(1)(a), the detention must follow and be dependent upon the previous conviction. A minor conviction, not sufficiently serious to warrant a sentence of detention, could not be used to justify the reimposition of an earlier sentence imposed as a result of an unrelated previous conviction. In the present case the period of release on licence was of such length that it was no longer open to the Home Office to rely on the 1967 conviction to justify his further detention some ten years later, after fifteen months of liberty. The 1977 convictions were substantially different in kind from those of 1967. The court itself, after a full hearing, at which the applicant was legally represented, recommended that he should not be detained and imposed a non-custodial sentence first.
#