The detention of a young offender for an additional 11 days after the expiry of his sentence had not breached his rights under ECHR art.5(1). Although the award of additional days had been quashed after the days had been served, it had been imposed in accordance with a judicial procedure prescribed by law and had remained lawful until the date of its quashing.
A consent order quashing an adjudicator’s award that a prisoner should serve additional days in custody had removed any legal basis for that award. As the prisoner had served 11 additional days he was entitled to damages for breach of the ECHR art.5.
A decision of an independent adjudicator to impose an additional 13 days on a prisoner’s sentence following an adjudication was quashed where the adjudicator had refused to exercise his discretion in favour of adducing CCTV footage that might have assisted, and instead relied upon the disputed evidence of the reporting officer.
A prisoner who had seriously assaulted a prison officer should have had the disciplinary hearing in front of an independent adjudicator rather than the prison governor. However, there had been no procedural unfairness and there was no need to quash the decision.
A life prisoner did not have the right to be tried by an independent adjudicator rather than by a prison governor for offences contrary to the Prison Rules 1999 where in the circumstances there were no consequences sufficiently serious to trigger the third of the criteria in Engel v The Netherlands (1979-80) 1 EHRR 647, and the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Art.6 was not engaged.