TNAG-1585-FCO40-2159-Hong-Kong-prisons-and-prisoners-1986 — Page 30

- 1

INTRODUCTION

1. The following is an outline of the case submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights and of the proceedings before the Commission.

SUBSTANCE OF THE APPLICATION

2. The application concerns a prisoner serving a life sentence who was released on licence and subsequently recalled by the Secretary of State. He claims that his re-detention was contrary to Art. 5(1) and that he was unable to challenge the lawfulness of his re-detention before a court or have periodic reviews of his detention, at reasonable intervals throughout his imprisonment.

3.

On 6 December 1966 the applicant, then aged 17, pleaded guilty inter alia to armed robbery. The robbery had been committed with a starting pistol, loaded with blank cartridges. The trial judge considered that he could send the applicant to a mental hospital because of lack of evidence. However, he took the view, subsequently endorsed by the Court of Appeal, that an indeterminate life sentence would be the most humane punishment in the applicant's case, as opposed to a fixed term of imprisonment, as it would enable the Home Secretary to release the applicant on licence when it was safe to do so. The applicant was eventually released on licence after a recommendation by the Parole Board in March 1976.

4. On 19 April 1977 he was warned, after a conviction for burglary and driving offences, that his licence could be revoked. On 21 June 1977 he was arrested and subsequently released, having damaged a car while driving a truck without permission. The next day he visited a public house and became drunk and abusive. After being escorted by the police back to his place of work, he subsequently became agitated, produced and fired an air pistol and threatened to commit suicide. was then arrested and taken to a police station where be became abusive and violent and during the night tried to hang himself.

5. In the light of these events, the Home Secretary ordered that the applicant's licence be revoked under Section 62 (2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. This was subsequently confirmed by the Parole Board in December 1977.

6. He was eventually released once more on a re

recommendation by the

Parole Board on 18 October 1982.

He

7. The applicant complained to the Commission that his re-detention in June 1977 was not in accordance with Art. 5(1)(a) which provides for the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court. He contended that his minor conviction, after 15 months of liberty, was not sufficiently serious to justify his re-detention on the foot of his earlier conviction. He further complained under Art. 5(4) that at the time of his recall he was unable to have the lawfulness of his re-detention determined by a court. Nor was he able to have a periodic review of the lawfulness of his detention at reasonable intervals throughout his imprisonment.

Page 30Page 31

9787/82