1
9787/82
-
Hearings are not held in public. Nor is the decision of the Board given in public.
[
The Board is not independent of the Home Secretary. He appoints the Board and makes the rules under which it conducts its procedures. He also decides the terms and length of period under which a member is appointed. It is the staff of the Home Office who prepare the case papers for the Board and in general it is the Home Secretary who decides when a prisoner's case should be referred to the Board except where he decides to revoke the licence without first informing the Board. This is the only instance in which the Board has the power to order release. Every other decision is a recommendation which the Home Secretary is at liberty to disregard.
So
The Board cannot decide on the lawfulness of the detention. long as a life sentence remains in force, the Home Secretary will always be acting lawfully if he decides to revoke the licence and re-detain the applicant.
The Board's proceedings are not speedy. The applicant's licence was revoked in June and the Board did not give its decision until December 1977.
Periodic Review
The applicant submits that the only basis for the life sentence in his case was his alleged mental immaturity and that he would be released as soon as it was safe to do so. This clearly distinguishes his case from that of X. v. United Kingdom considered by the Commission in Application N° 9089/80. He observes that the Court regarded the Dutch definition of a mentally ill person (mental disorder of such kind or such gravity as to make him an actual danger to himself or to others) as being compatible with the definition of persons of unsound mind in Art. 5(1)(e) (the Winterwerp case). This application is clearly analogous to that situation, even though the alleged mental instability was not sufficiently serious to justify his detention in a mental hospital. The crux of his arguments have been that (a) the original probation report was false and (b) in any event he was no longer immature and irresponsible or a danger to others. He submits that he falls within the class of deprivation of liberty where the criteria for detention change and so he was entitled to periodic review by a court.