Prisoners

Discretionary life prisoner - two-year interval between Parole Board reviews - not unreasonable R (MacNeil) v Parole Board: CA (Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR, Lords Justices Peter Gibson and Latham): 21 March 2001The claimant was 17 when convicted of murder in 1982 and sentenced to be detained at Her Majesty's pleasure.

He was released on licence in 1992 but his licence was revoked after six weeks when he was arrested for using violence to gain entry to a public house.

His further release was reviewed at intervals by the discretionary life panel of the Parole Board.

In January 2000 the panel directed that the claimant spend two years in an open prison before the next review.

His application for judicial review of that decision was refused.

He appealed on the sole ground that the judge might have granted the application had he been referred to Oldham v United Kingdom (application no 36273/97), 26 September 2000 in which the European Court of Human Rights had decided that a two-year interval between Parole Board reviews was unreasonable and contravened article 5(4) of the European Convention for Human Rights, as enacted by the Human Rights Act 1998.Richard Clough (instructed by Hallinan Blackburn Gittings & Nott) for the claimant.

Jennifer Richards (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Parole Board.Held, dismissing the appeal, that Oldham did not decide as a matter of principle the maximum permissible interval between reviews to consider the release of a discretionary life prisoner but stated that each case turned on its own facts; that on the facts an interval of two years between reviews was not unreasonable; and that, accordingly, the Parole Board's decision did not violate article 5(4) of the convention.