European Court of Human Rights

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Hirst & Blackstock v the United Kingdom - 59512/00 [2010] ECHR 1891 (15 September 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1891.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1891

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)119^¹

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Hirst & Blackstock against the United Kingdom

(Hirst, Application No. 40787/98, judgment of 24 July 2001, final on 24 October 2001 and

Blackstock, Application No. 59512/00, judgment of 21 June 2005, final on 21 September 2005)

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 concerns: in both cases the excessive interval between the reviews concerning the applicants’ continued detention as discretionary life prisoners (violations of Article 5, paragraph 4) and in the Blackstock case, the fact that no possibility of obtaining compensation existed at the relevant time in domestic law in respect of the violation of Article 5, paragraph 4 (violation 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, within the time-limit set, 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(2010)119

Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in the cases of

Hirst & Blackstock against the United Kingdom

Introductory case summary

These cases concern the excessive interval between the reviews concerning the applicants’ continued detention as discretionary life prisoners after the expiry of their tariffs (that is to say, the minimum period of the sentence to be served in order to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence) (violations of Article 5, paragraph 4).

In the Hirst case, the European Court concluded that in the light of the circumstances of the case, the twenty-one month and two-year delays between reviews (between October 1996 and July 2000) were not reasonable and that the question of whether the applicant’s continued detention was lawful was not decided “speedily” within the meaning of Article 5, paragraph 4 of the Convention (§44).

In the Blackstock case, the European Court concluded that in the light of the circumstances of the case, the procedure adopted by the authorities, which led to an interval of twenty-two months between reviews (between June 1998 and April 2000), did not pay due regard to the need for “expedition” under the Convention (§48).

In the Blackstock case, the European Court also found that no possibility of obtaining compensation existed at the relevant time in domestic law in respect of the violation of Article 5, paragraph 4 (violation 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
Hirst, Application No. 40787/98	--	1 000 GBP	7 500 GBP	8 500 GBP
Paid on 09/10/2001
Blackstock, Application No. 59512/00	--	1 460 EUR	8 756 EUR	10 216 EUR
Paid on 29/09/2005

b) Individual measures

In the Hirst case, the European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage arising from the violation. The applicant was released on licence in 2004.

In the Blackstock case, the European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of the non pecuniary damage arising from the violation. The applicant was released on licence in 2002.

In these circumstances, it seems that no further individual measure is necessary.

II. General measures

- As regards the violation of Article 5, paragraph 4, these cases present similarities to those of A.T. and Oldham against the United Kingdom (see resolutions DH(98)202 and ResDH(2001)160).Those cases were closed on the basis of the entry into force of Section 28.7 (b) of the Crime Sentence Act 1997, which prescribes periods of maximum two years between reviews of prison conditions. The authorities of the respondent state provided the Committee with a list of examples of cases reviewed at different intervals, of between 9 and 18 months. These examples demonstrate that although section 28.7 (b) of the Crime Sentence Act 1997 prescribes periods of a maximum of two years between the reviews of prison conditions, the two-year period is the maximum and not the norm, that these periods vary depending on the circumstances of each case and that the competent domestic authorities (that is to say, the Secretary of State, the Parole Board and the Lifer Unit of the Ministry of Justice (formerly of the Home Office)) apply the relevant provisions of the Crime Sentence Act 1997 in conformity with the case-law of the European Court (in particular, following the entry into force of the Human Rights Act 1998 on 2 October 2000).

The Hirst judgment was published in The Times Law Reports on 3 August 2001, discussed in the Criminal Law Review at (2001) Crim LR 919 and widely circulated within the Lifer Unit of the Home Office. An internal circular was issued in 2002 and a reminder notice in 2003, both reminding persons dealing with cases that the two-year period interval between reviews must be the maximum and not the norm for tariff-expired lifers and that all decisions on timing of the next review must be based on the individual circumstances of the case.

To complement the measures taken in the Hirst case, the Blackstock judgment was published in the European Human Rights Reports under the reference (2006) 42 EHRR 2 and reported in The Times on 29 June 2005. It was also published on Nexis and on the Westlaw UK website (an online legal information service).

- As regards the violation of Article 5, paragraph 5, an enforceable right to compensation for violation of Article 5, paragraph 4 now exists in the United Kingdom, following the entry into force of the Human Rights Act 1998 in October 2000 (see in particular, paragraphs 85 and 86 of the Kolanis judgment of 21 June 2005).

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that no individual measure was required in these cases, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction awarded to the applicants by the Court, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that the United Kingdom has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46 paragraph 1 of the Convention.

1 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 15 September 2010 at the 1092nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies