- 16 ·
9787/82
persons who are independent. Thus the Board includes amongst its members three High Court and three Circuit judges, two clergymen, a retired police Chief Inspector and a number of psychiatrists. It operates independently from the Home Office. Accordingly, it is submitted that the Parole Board is a Court within the meaning of Art. 5(4) when it deals with a case of revocation of licence.
57.
Periodic Review
The Government dispute that there can be a requirement of periodic judicial review of the lawfulness of detention in a case where a prisoner is serving the sentence imposed on him by the court by whom he was convicted. This is not a case of deprivation of liberty on grounds of mental instability. The applicant was originally sentenced to imprisonment because he was considered to present a danger to the society. In this respect reference is made to the Commission's decision on admissibility in the case of X v. United Kingdom (Application N° 9089/80 loc. cit.).
Commission stated, deprivation of liberty under Art. 5(1)(e) by the changing nature of mental illness requires periodic judicial review under Art. 5(4). On the other hand, Art. 5(1)(a) "is a mere formal requirement which justifies the detention of a person convicted by a competent court. The detention is ordered as a retributive punishment for the immutable fact that the person concerned has been found guilty of an offence. Therefore the grounds on which the decision to convict and sentence were taken are not, unlike the case of a person of unsound mind, subject to change during detention".
OPINION OF THE COMMISSION
58.
1.
2.
59.
Points at Issue
The main points at issue in the present case are as follows:
When the applicant was re-detained in June 1977, was his detention justified under Art. 5 (1)(a) as the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court?
Was the applicant able to have the lawfulness of his re-detention determined by a court or to have a periodic review of the lawfulness of his detention at reasonable intervals throughout his Imprisonment, as required by Art. 5 (4)?
As regards Article 5(1)
The applicant contends that his re-detention in 1977 after his licence was revoked by the Home Secretary was unlawful. The respondent Government maintain that his re-detention was based on his
Page 45Page 46
9787/82