Introduction

The case of Faulkner v Secretary of State for Justice & Anor ([2013] 2 WLR 1157) heard by the United Kingdom Supreme Court on May 1, 2013, presents a pivotal moment in the interpretation and application of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) within UK law. This case centers around the procedural and substantive implications of delays in the review of detention cases by the Parole Board, particularly focusing on breaches of Article 5(4) of the Convention, which guarantees the right to have the lawfulness of detention reviewed speedily by a court.

The appellants, Daniel Faulkner and Samuel Sturnham, sought damages under the Human Rights Act 1998 for prolonged detention resulting from administrative delays, which they contended violated their rights under Article 5(4). The government, represented by the Secretary of State for Justice, contested the claims, arguing the delays did not justify the awards of damages sought.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court delivered a nuanced judgment addressing the circumstances under which damages should be awarded for breaches of Article 5(4). The court analyzed prior European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) jurisprudence and domestic case law to delineate the criteria for such awards.

In Faulkner’s case, the court determined that the award of damages should reflect the severity of the delay, considering factors like the conditional nature of release and the potential impact on the individual’s liberty. The court concluded that an award of £6,500 was appropriate, deeming the initial award of £10,000 excessive.

In contrast, Sturnham's appeal involved a shorter delay, resulting in an award deemed insufficient by the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court upheld the reduced award of £300, finding it adequate given the six-month delay and the absence of more severe consequences.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced ECtHR cases, particularly focusing on:

• Nikolova v Bulgaria (2001): Established that just satisfaction for breaches of Article 5(4) typically requires a deprivation of liberty, limiting awards for procedural delays.
• Oldham v United Kingdom (2001): Demonstrated that delays between reviews can cause non-pecuniary damage, warranting modest compensation.
• Hirst v United Kingdom (2001) and Blackstock v United Kingdom (2006): Reinforced the principle that anxiety and frustration from delays can justify damages independently of actual loss of liberty.
• Kolanis v United Kingdom (2006): Highlighted that significant delays (approximately 12 months) leading to a loss of opportunity for earlier release can justify higher damages.

The judgment also considered domestic cases such as R (Greenfield) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2005), which emphasized alignment with ECtHR principles over domestic precedents in awarding damages.

Legal Reasoning

The court's reasoning centered on the interpretation of Article 5(4) rights and the corresponding remedies under the Human Rights Act 1998. Key points include:

• Distinction Between False Imprisonment and Article 5(4) Violations: The court clarified that prolonged detention due to administrative delays does not constitute false imprisonment under common law but may breach Article 5(4) of the Convention.
• Criteria for Damages: Awards should consider the duration of the delay, the specific circumstances of the detainee, and whether the delay resulted in a loss of opportunity for earlier release or caused significant mental distress.
• Guidance from ECtHR: Emphasis was placed on ECtHR's practice of awarding damages for non-pecuniary harm such as anxiety and frustration resulting from delays, even in the absence of actual loss of liberty.
• Quantum of Damages: The court underscored that awards should be proportional, reflecting the severity of the breach and comparable to ECtHR's precedents, adjusted for UK economic conditions.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for both administrative bodies and individuals subject to indeterminate sentences or life imprisonment:

• For Administrative Bodies: Reinforces the necessity for timely processing of parole and review cases to avoid potential liabilities for damages.
• For Individuals: Provides a clearer framework for seeking compensation for procedural delays impacting the review of their detention status.
• Legal Precedent: Establishes guidelines for future cases concerning the awarding of damages under Article 5(4), promoting consistency and fairness in judicial decisions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Article 5(1) and 5(4) Explained

Article 5(1): Ensures the right to liberty and security, specifying lawful grounds for detention following conviction.

Article 5(4): Guarantees the right to have the lawfulness of one's detention reviewed promptly by a court, preventing arbitrary prolongation of detention.

Human Rights Act 1998 – Section 8

This section empowers UK courts to award damages when a public authority breaches Convention rights. It requires courts to consider principles from ECtHR rulings but not to be strictly bound by them, allowing flexibility in awarding just compensation.

Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection (IPP)

Introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, IPP sentences allow for indefinite detention of offenders deemed a significant risk to the public. The decision to release such prisoners is contingent upon ongoing risk assessments by the Parole Board.

Just Satisfaction

Under Article 41 of the ECHR, just satisfaction refers to a remedy that aims to compensate victims for violations of their Convention rights. This can include monetary damages but is guided by fairness and the principles established by ECtHR jurisprudence.

Conclusion

The Faulkner v Secretary of State for Justice judgment marks a critical development in the application of human rights within the UK's legal framework. By meticulously aligning domestic remedies with ECtHR principles, the court not only clarified the conditions under which damages for Article 5(4) breaches are warranted but also reinforced the importance of timely administrative processes in safeguarding individual liberties.

This case underscores the delicate balance between administrative efficiency and the protection of fundamental human rights. It serves as a precedent ensuring that delays in detention reviews do not result in unwarranted prolongation of detention without recourse to timely judicial oversight, thereby enhancing the accountability of public authorities and reinforcing the rights of individuals within the criminal justice system.

Moving forward, this judgment provides a robust framework for both claimants seeking redress for procedural delays and authorities striving to adhere to human rights obligations, fostering a more just and equitable legal environment.