Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)179

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Stafford and three other cases against the United Kingdom

(Stafford, Application No. 46295/99, judgment of 28 May 2002 – Grand Chamber;
Von Bülow, Application No.75362/01, judgment of 7 October 2003, final on 7 January 2004;
Wynne (No. 2), Application No. 67385/01, judgment of 16 October 2003, final on 16 January 2004; and
Hill, Application No. 19365/02, judgment of 27 April 2004, final on 27 July 2004)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;

Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern the continued detention of the applicants after the expiry of their tariffs without review of their cases by a body empowered to order their release or presenting the necessary judicial safeguards (violations of Article 5, paragraph 4); in the Stafford case, the lack of legal basis for detention (violation of Article 5, paragraph 1); and in the Wynne (No. 2) and Hill cases, the lack of compensation for such detention (violations of Article 5, paragraph 5) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of
- individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

- general measures preventing similar violations;

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and

DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)179

Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in the case of
Stafford and three other cases against the United Kingdom

Introductory case summary

These cases concern the continued detention of the applicants, who had been sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment. The applicants’ “tariffs” (the minimum period required to be served by a prisoner to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence, after which continued detention may be based only on the need for protection of the public) expired respectively in 1979, 1998, 1991 and 1993. The applicants continued to be detained after the expiry of their tariffs without the possibility of their cases’ being reviewed by a body with the power to order their release or with the necessary judicial safeguards (violations of Article 5, paragraph 4). The Stafford case also concerns the unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention, given that following his release on licence after serving the tariff imposed on him in 1967 under a mandatory life sentence for murder, the Secretary of State for the Home Department decided in 1997 to continue his detention on grounds unrelated to his original conviction (violation of Article 5, paragraph 1).

The Wynne (No. 2) and Hill cases also concern the lack of an enforceable right to compensation for the breach of the applicants’ right to liberty (violations of Article 5, paragraph 5).

I.	Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Name and application number	Pecuniary damage	Non-pecuniary damage	Costs and expenses	Total	
Stafford,
No. 46295/99		16 500 EUR
(Global sum)	17 865.10 GBP	28 851.19 GBP	
	Paid on 20/09/2002 	
Von Bülow,
No. 75362/01	--	1 500 EUR	1 000 EUR	1 771.71 GBP	
	Paid on 20/01/2004 	
Wynne (No. 2),
No. 67385/01	--	--	--	--	
	No just satisfaction awarded	
Hill,
No. 19365/02	--	2 200 EUR	3 827 EUR	4 212.18 GBP	
	Paid on 11/01/2005 with interest	

b) Individual measures

1) Stafford case: Mr Stafford was released by the Secretary of State on 22 December 1998 (§27 of the judgment).

For the remainder of the applicants, the individual measures are related to the general measures, in particular the role of the Parole Board in reviewing their detention (see below).

	2) Von Bülow case: Mr von Bülow had a hearing before the Parole Board on 2 February 2005. The Parole Board did not direct his release.

	3) Wynne (No. 2) case: Mr Wynne had a hearing before the Parole Board on 12 January 2005. The Board considered that the applicant did not meet the criteria for transfer to open prison and recommended that he remain in closed conditions.

	4) Hill case: Mr Hill’s case was reviewed by the Parole Board on 12 April 2006. The Parole Board did not direct release but recommended re-categorisation, which was rejected by a Home Office Minister. It should be noted that decisions relating to prisoners’ conditions of imprisonment (unlike decisions relating to release) fall within the remit of the Secretary of State.

For as long as they remain in prison, the applicants will continue to have their detention regularly reviewed by the Parole Board.

Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

II.	General measures

	1) Violation of Article 5§1 in the Stafford case: The violation was due to the applicant’s continued detention after the expiry of his tariff for reasons unrelated to his original conviction. The situation arose because of the Secretary of State’s decision to depart from the Parole Board’s recommendation that the applicant should be released. Insofar as the Secretary of State is no longer free to depart from the recommendations of the Parole Board regarding the release of mandatory life sentence prisoners with respect to whom a minimum term order has been made, similar violations should not occur in future.

The Parole Board, as a public authority within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998, would be acting unlawfully if it now acted in a way incompatible with a right protected by the Convention in assessing the release of a prisoner in circumstances similar to those arising in the Stafford case.

	2) Violations of Article 5§4
As a result of the legislative amendments introduced through Part 12, chapter 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and Schedules 21 and 22 to that Act, which came into force on 18 December 2003, the Parole Board is now competent to rule on the release of all mandatory life sentence prisoners; the Secretary of State is no longer free to depart from its decisions. The Parole Board Rules are available at www.paroleboard.gov.uk

	3) Violation of Article 5§5 in the Wynne (No. 2) and Hill cases: under Section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way incompatible with a right protected by the Convention. Under Section 8 of the HRA, if a court finds that such an unlawful act has occurred, it may award damages (see Bubbins against the United Kingdom 50196/99, Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)101) .

All four judgments were published in the European Human Rights reports with the following references: -
•	Stafford at (2002) 35 EHRR 32
•	Wynne (No. 2) at (2004) 38 EHRR 42
•	Von Bülow at (2004) 39 EHRR 16, [2003] ECHR 478
•	Hill at [2004] ECHR 179

III.	Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted have remedied the consequences for the applicants of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in these cases, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that the United Kingdom has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.