Introduction

The case of Kessie-Adjei v Secretary of State for Justice ([2023] EWCA Civ 720) presents a pivotal examination of the lawful grounds for detaining an individual under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, specifically focusing on the revocation of a parole licence and subsequent recall to prison. The appellant, Kessie-Adjei, challenged the legality of his detention from January 15 to March 4, 2021, arguing that it breached his rights under Article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The central issues revolved around whether the detention was arbitrary and whether the policies governing such detentions met the required standards of legal certainty.

This case involved the appellant, who had previously been sentenced and released on licence, subsequently breaching the terms of his licence by committing an offense. The Secretary of State for Justice revoked his licence, leading to his recall and detention. Kessie-Adjei contested the detention on human rights grounds, prompting a detailed judicial review.

Summary of the Judgment

The England and Wales Court of Appeal upheld the decision of Mrs Justice Heather Williams, dismissing Kessie-Adjei's appeal. The court found that the appellant's detention was lawful under domestic law and did not contravene Article 5(1) of the ECHR. The primary reasons for upholding the detention included:

• The detention was a direct consequence of a breach of licence conditions.
• There was a sufficient causal link between the original sentence and the subsequent detention.
• The revocation of the licence followed established legal procedures.
• No evidence of bad faith or deception by authorities was found.
• The policy in question, PSI 3/2015, did not constitute a legal requirement that would infringe on Article 5(1).

The appellate court emphasized that despite administrative lapses in the handling of the appellant's case, these did not render the detention arbitrary or unlawful.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key precedents that shaped the court's reasoning:

• James v United Kingdom (2013): Established principles regarding the non-arbitrariness of detention, emphasizing the necessity of a genuine causal link between the deprivation of liberty and a lawful authority.
• Conka v Belgium (2002): Highlighted that deliberate deception by authorities to facilitate detention constitutes a violation of Article 5(1).
• Del Rio Prada v Spain (2013): Addressed the foreseeability requirement in lawful detention, stressing that laws must be precise to prevent arbitrariness.
• Khan v Secretary of State for Justice (2020): Discussed the legal authority of original sentencing throughout the term, even amidst policy changes.
• Morgan v Ministry of Justice (2023): Differentiated between measures related to the execution of a sentence and changes to penalties, asserting that execution measures impacting liberty are subject to Article 5 requirements.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning hinged on affirming the non-arbitrary nature of the appellant's detention. Key aspects included:

• Lawful Basis for Detention: The detention was grounded in established domestic law provisions that allow for the revocation of a parole licence upon breach of conditions.
• Causal Link: There was a clear and unbroken connection between the original sentence and the subsequent detention, as the appellant had violated the terms of his licence.
• Absence of Bad Faith: The court found no evidence that authorities acted in bad faith or with deceptive intent in the revocation and detention process.
• Foreseeability: The appellant was aware of the consequences of breaching his licence, making the detention foreseeable under the legal framework.
• Policy Evaluation: The policy PSI 3/2015 was not deemed to infringe upon Article 5(1) as it did not create new legal obligations but provided discretionary guidelines for exceptional circumstances.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the authority of existing parole and detention frameworks under UK law, ensuring that such mechanisms are upheld unless clear evidence of arbitrariness or human rights violations is presented. The affirmation of the non-arbitrariness of detention in this context:

• Strengthens the legal certainty surrounding parole revocation procedures.
• Clarifies the boundaries within which the Secretary of State can exercise discretion under policies like PSI 3/2015.
• Provides a reference point for future cases involving claims of arbitrary detention related to parole and licence revocations.
• Highlights the necessity for administrative bodies to maintain transparency and avoid deceptive practices to uphold human rights standards.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights

Article 5(1) guarantees the right to liberty and security of person. It stipulates that no one shall be deprived of their liberty except in specific, lawful circumstances and through a prescribed legal process. In this case, the appellant argued that his detention was arbitrary and thus violated this provision.

Unlawfully At Large

Being "unlawfully at large" means that an individual is absent from the designated place of detention without lawful justification. In the appellant's case, failing to surrender upon licence revocation rendered him unlawfully at large, subjecting him to detention without a warrant.

Causal Link

A causal link refers to the necessary connection between the initial crime or sentence and the subsequent detention. The court examined whether the detention was a direct consequence of the appellant's breach of his licence, maintaining that such a link was present and thus the detention was lawful.

Arbitrariness

Arbitrariness in detention implies that the deprivation of liberty lacks a lawful basis or sufficient justification, often arising from bad faith actions by authorities. The court found no evidence of arbitrariness, as the detention adhered to legal protocols and lacked malicious intent.

Legal Certainty

Legal certainty requires that laws be clear, predictable, and precise, allowing individuals to understand and anticipate the legal consequences of their actions. The appellant contended that the policy lacked clarity, but the court upheld that the existing legal framework provided sufficient clarity for the detention to be lawful.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in Kessie-Adjei v Secretary of State for Justice reaffirms the robustness of the UK’s legal framework governing parole revocation and detention. By meticulously analyzing the absence of arbitrariness, maintaining the necessary causal link between the original sentence and detention, and upholding the principles of legal certainty, the court solidifies the standards required to protect individuals' rights under Article 5(1) of the ECHR. This judgment serves as a critical reference for future cases involving detention post-licence revocation, ensuring that such processes remain grounded in lawful and non-arbitrary principles.