QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
| THE QUEEN
on the application of
|- and -
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR JUSTICE
on the application of
|- and -
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR JUSTICE
Philip Rule (instructed by Carringtons Solicitors) for Peter Jarvis
Ben Collins (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 18th and 19th March 2013
Crown Copyright ©
Mrs Justice Lang DBE :
a) a return to centrally managed lists combined with the prohibition of caps;
b) the introduction of a national prioritisation policy which would lead to transparently prioritised waiting lists that could be managed centrally by PMS;
c) NOMS Public Protection and Mental Health Group ("PPMHG") to co-ordinate ISPs who needed to be moved into open conditions and to pass their names to PMS;
d) introducing a minimum ISP capacity requirement for all open establishments;
e) consideration of an increase in the total number of open prison places.
a) central management of waiting lists by PMS;
b) priority of moves to be determined by PPMHG;
c) a commitment to clear the existing backlog of moves over a 9 month period;
d) a requirement for each open prison to increase its ISP complement by a minimum of 10% of operational capacity;
e) increase in the number of open estate places, by reconfiguration or expansion;
f) consideration of extending Release on Temporary Licence ("ROTL") to ISPs in closed conditions.
"I am writing to inform you that the Secretary of State has decided to grant your transfer to open conditions without the need for a full Parole Board review.
Having reviewed your dossier we are content that you are suitable for a move to a Category D establishment. Please note that the arrangements for the transfer remain the responsibility of the holding establishment.
In the circumstances your Parole Board hearing that was scheduled for 29 July 2011 will not now take place and your current establishment can begin arranging your transfer immediately. Your next review will take place on tariff expiry and you will receive a separate letter confirming the date."
"This review will allow you:
To be tested on all areas of risk.
To consolidate and continue to put into practice the skills and strategies learned from the offending behaviour work completed to date.
To undertake further work if necessary to address risk in the areas of: Accommodation, Financial management, Relationships, Lifestyle & associates, Thinking & behaviour, and Attitudes".
To maintain family ties.
To demonstrate your ability to comply with ROTL conditions.
To continue with vocational training and education to increase the possibility of securing employment on release.
To develop and test a robust release plan, which should include suitable employment, accommodation, and developing his vocational skills."
"Mr Haney is awaiting a transfer date which is controlled by a central resource.
Once we are notified we will contact his current establishment to arrange the transfer. Hopefully in the next few weeks."
a) In a report dated 20th April 2012, the Claimant's offender supervisor commented:
"It is unfortunate that Mr Haney has not had the opportunity to fulfil the requirements of the Secretary of State in open conditions, and to demonstrate his positive behaviour and thinking in the less restrictive conditions of an open prison. Certainly his behaviour at HMP Blundeston has caused no concerns in recent months and he has managed his frustration about the lack of progress appropriately and without incident. It is my view, though, that it remains important for Mr Haney to go through the process of a staged return to the community, particularly as he is making very significant changes to an established historical lifestyle of criminality, including violence and the use of weapons. I would not, therefore, recommend his release at this time, but would hope that he is given the opportunity as soon as possible to move into open conditions."
b) The Claimant's offender manager commented in a report dated 10th May 2012:
"Mr Haney now accepts responsibility for his involvement in this offence and has done his utmost to address the issues surrounding it by attending relevant courses in prison. Reports from those in prison who have worked with him are positive. Mr Haney is currently assessed as posing a medium risk of re-offending and a medium risk of serious harm upon release. … In June 2011 Mr Haney was granted a transfer to open conditions by the Secretary of State without the requirement of an Oral Hearing. I understand that he was provisionally accepted by HMP Kirklevington Grange but due to the nature of the medication he was prescribed at that time the transfer was postponed. A change in the management of Lifer prisoners has resulted in a further delay. Mr Haney is very disheartened by the delay. However, to his credit he has shown considerable patience and hopes to be transferred as soon as possible.
At the present time I would not recommend Mr Haney's release as he has not been provided with the opportunity to demonstrate his positive behaviour in a less restrictive environment."
"Areas of concern to be addressed prior to the next review are:
- To undertake further relapse prevention and risk reduction consolidation work as may be recommended for you with motivation and commitment.
- To develop fully formed strategies to prevent a return to your former alcohol misuse behaviour.
- Use the opportunity to advance your employment prospects.
- To undertake ROTL.
- To consolidate skills learned from offending behaviour programmes completed to date.
- To be carefully monitored in all areas of risk to ensure that you are equipped to deal with the requirements of everyday life in the community.
- To build a constructive relationship with you Offender Manager and with his/her help develop and test a robust release plan.
Mr Jarvis' review has been set to conclude on tariff expiry i.e. July 2013 and take account of the following: -
- Transfer period
- Relapse prevention and risk reduction consolidation work including testing, and the following ROTLS (will take place after 4 – 6 months)
- Robust release plan."
"As Mr Jarvis' tariffs are yet to expire, they will not be considered for transfer under this exercise at this time. We are expecting to begin prioritising pre tariff ISPs at a later date, which will be agreed once the level of post-tariff prisoners awaiting transfer to open conditions has been reduced to a more manageable level".
"As Mr Jarvis' tariff will not expire until 8 July 2013, he will not be prioritised for transfer yet. We will begin the process of transferring pre-tariff prisoners once the backlog of post tariff prisoners has been dealt with; we expect this should be within 9 months. Prioritisation of pre-tariff prisoners will also be determined by the date of SofS approval; the longer the period of time the prisoner has been waiting to transfer the higher will be the priority to transfer the prisoner. However, with a view to beginning the process of moving pre-tariff prisoners as soon as possible, we will review the approach we are planning to take with pre-tariff prisoners early in 2012 in light of progress with transferring post tariff prisoners."
Grounds of challenge, other than under the Human Rights Act 1998
(1) Statutory and policy framework
"(1) A prisoner, whether sentenced to imprisonment or committed to prison on remand or pending trial or otherwise, may be lawfully confined in any prison.
(2) Prisoners shall be committed to such prisons as the Secretary of State may from time to time direct; and may by direction of the Secretary of State be removed during the term of imprisonment from the prison in which they are confined to any other prison."
"(1) Prisoners shall be classified, in accordance with any directions of the Secretary of State, having regard to their age, temperament and record and with a view to maintaining good order and facilitating training and, in the case of convicted prisoners, of furthering the purpose of their training and treatment as provided by rule 3."
"Life sentence prisoners will be allocated to a resettlement estate place as a result of progress in meeting sentence planning targets and reducing risk of harm…"
At paragraph 7.24
"It will be the norm for male life sentence prisoners to undergo both Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the resettlement estate process in an open establishment or one of the three resettlement prisons."
"1. A period in open conditions is essential for most life sentence prisoners, 'lifers'. It allows the testing of areas of concern in conditions which are nearer to those in the community than can be found in closed prisons. Lifers have the opportunity to take home leave from open prisons and, more generally, open conditions require them to take more responsibility for their actions.
2. In considering whether a lifer should be transferred to open conditions, the Parole Board should balance the risks against the benefits to be gained from such a move. Such considerations is, thus, somewhat different from the judgment to be made when deciding if a lifer should be released: in those cases, the Parole Board is asked only to consider risk.
3. The principal factors which the Parole Board should take into account when evaluating the risks of transfer against the benefits are:
(a) whether the lifer has made sufficient progress towards tackling offending behaviour to minimise the risk and gravity of reoffending and whether the benefits suggest that a transfer to open conditions is worthwhile at that stage; and,
(b) whether the lifer is trustworthy enough not to abscond or commit further offences (either inside or outside the prison).
4. Each case should be considered on its individual merits.
5. Before recommending transfer to open conditions, the Parole Board should consider whether:
(a) the extent to which the risk that the lifer will abscond or commit further offence while in prison is minimal;
(b) the lifer has shown by his performance in closed conditions that he has made positive efforts to address his attitudes and behavioural problems and the extent to which significant progress has been made in doing so;
(c) the lifer is likely to derive benefit from being able to continue to address areas of concern in an open prison and to be tested in a more realistic environment."
"The transfer of a prisoner from closed to open conditions is – at first blush, at any rate – no more than a re-categorisation of a prisoner's security classification and on the face of it has nothing to do with the prisoner's early release from prison. In fact that is not right. A change in the prisoner's security classification is the consequence of any decision to transfer the prisoner to open conditions, not the cause of it … a lifer is very unlikely to be released without having spent some time in open conditions. That was what Irwin J. found in R (Hill) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWHC 2164 (Admin) at  – . It is therefore common ground that for such prisoners their transfer from closed to open conditions is "to do with [their] early release", since the earlier they are transferred to open conditions, the sooner they are likely to be released."
"4.8.1 In most mandatory lifer cases, a phased release from closed to open prison is necessary in order to test their readiness for release into the community on life licence. A similar approach will apply to many other indeterminate sentence cases, but decisions will need to be taken on a case by case basis. In general terms, the longer the time in custody served by an ISP, the more likely they are to require a period in open conditions as part of a phased release."
"4.8.2 The intention is that the ISP will undergo final assessment in conditions as near as possible to those in the community, as long as appropriate risk management plans are in place. S/he will be encouraged to gain work experience in preparation for release back into the community. Whilst the emphasis will be preparing the ISP for their release back in to the community on licence, the risk assessment process must continue. It is important, therefore, a thorough ROTL risk assessment is conducted upon their arrival to ensure all areas of risk have been identified and addressed, before they are considered for ROTL. The risk assessment must be completed within 14 days of the ISP's arrival. ROTL is covered by PSO 6300."
"… the detention of the applicants after the expiry of the punitive periods of their sentences is comparable to that at issue in the Van Droogenbroeck and Weeks cases: the factors of mental instability and dangerousness are susceptible to change over the passage of time and new issues of lawfulness may thus arise in the course of detention. It follows that at this phase in the execution of their sentences, the applicants are entitled under article 5(4) to take proceedings to have the lawfulness of their continued detention decided by a court at reasonable intervals and to have the lawfulness of any re-detention determined by a court."
a) it is the obligation of the state to organise its legal system to enable it to comply with Convention requirements (at ); and
b) there is no general principle that "administrative necessity", including lack of resources, excuses delay on the part of the State (at );
c) the fact that the state is dealing with people who are at least presumptively detained unlawfully and the legality of whose detention is controlled by article 5(4), imposes a more intense obligation than the prompt hearing obligation under article 6(1) (at ).
(2) Ground 1: breach of the Defendant's public law duty
(3) Ground 2: the October 2011 policy or 'new arrangements'
a) it was irrational and unfair to prioritise all post-tariff prisoners ahead of pre-tariff prisoners, regardless of their position on the waiting list prior to October 2011;
b) it was irrational and unfair not to make space for ISPs by pausing the transfer of determinate prisoners, who are released automatically and for whom transfer to open conditions is not a pre-requisite for release;
c) the Defendant failed to have regard to material considerations, including the length of time spent waiting for transfer and the length of tariff (submitted only on behalf of Mr Jarvis);
d) the Defendant adopted an inflexible policy and thereby fettered his discretion;
e) the Defendant applied an unpublished policy which conflicted with the published policy (submitted only on behalf of Mr Jarvis).
Rationality, fairness and taking into account relevant considerations
2. A system of prioritisation was required to address the backlog, because it would not be possible or safe, to transfer all the ISPs awaiting transfer at the same time. Whilst NOMS aims to transfer prisoners who are identified as being part of the backlog into open conditions as soon as possible, it is extremely important, given the numbers involved, together with the complexity of individual cases and the risks and needs which offenders concerned present, that transfers are managed with care. Thus it is necessary to consider both the needs of the prisoners and the pace at which transfers are operationally manageable for individual establishments. For these reasons, the process of identifying and allocating suitable establishments and effecting transfers is being phased, with prisoners' cases being dealt with by PMS in tranches, initially of 50 at a time, since increased to 100, and potentially increasing still further.
3. For purposes of clearing the backlog, prisoners whose tariff has expired were considered to be a higher priority than pre-tariff prisoners because they have served the punitive part of their sentence and progression through their sentences is now entirely focused on reducing their risk to the point where the Parole Board determines that they may be safety released. The decision was taken to prioritise post tariff prisoners over pre tariff prisoners because the earliest pre tariff prisoners can be released is at tariff expiry. The view was taken that the further away from tariff expiry a prisoners is, the less likely it is that they would be prejudiced by a non-immediate transfer to open conditions after the Secretary of State's approval.
4. When considering how to prioritise pre-tariff prisoners, considerations included:
i. the need to ensure fair treatment between prisoners, including that prisoners who were often difficult to place (such as sex offenders) were not disadvantaged compared to those with less complex needs;
ii. to take account of the length of time for which prisoners had waited for transfer;
iii. to take account of the amount of time remaining prior to tariff expiry;
iv. to provide a transparent system so that prisoners could be given reasonable estimate as to when they were likely to move;
v. to set up a system that was straightforward and would avoid complex and resource intensive administration; and
vi. to permit exceptional circumstances
to be considered on request in individual cases.
5. Among pre tariff prisoners, it was decided, after considering various alternative means of prioritisation, that the fairest solution was to prioritise prisoners in orders of proximity to tariff expiry. This solution also had the benefit of being transparent, straightforward and practical. There were a number of prisoners approaching tariff expiry and we considered these prisoners to be of the highest priority and wanted to ensure that the criteria did not allow them to be leapfrogged by other prisoners. Prisoners who had a year or two to go until their tariff expiry would have plenty of time to utilise open conditions to demonstrate to the Parole Board a reduction in risk even if there was a delay in transferring them.
6. Consideration was given to other way of prioritising pre tariff prisoners, such as proximity to next parole review; individual circumstances; length of tariff; and date of Secretary of State approval; but these options would disadvantage many prisoners who were approaching their tariff expiry date, leading to anomalous and unfair treatment:
i. Proximity to parole review date: Once a pre tariff prisoner is approved for open conditions by the Secretary of State their parole review will take place on tariff expiry. Therefore there is not much difference between prioritisation using next parole review or tariff expiry date. However, parole reviews can be subject to delay for a number of reasons including late submission of reports; awaiting completion of offending behaviour work; or availability of panel members or witnesses. Parole reviews may also be deferred whereas tariff expiry dates remain the same. In cases where there is a delay or a deferral, prisoners placement on the list would have to be revised to take account of the new timetable. As parole review dates vary from one prisoner to the next in this manner, a waiting list organised by reference to this would be extremely fluid and the result of this would be that prisoner's positions on the waiting list would be subject to continual change. Re-consideration and prioritisation of each case would have to be repeated on an unacceptably frequent basis as ISPs were added to, or removed from the list, or otherwise reprioritised following deferral or delay. It would, therefore, be impossible to give a meaningful estimate of the likely period a prisoner would have to wait for transfer. We therefore believe that this solution would be unfair, as well as lacking in transparency and being difficult to manage.
ii. Length of tariff was considered to be irrelevant to the prioritisation process as it has no bearing on the Secretary of State's approval for a transfer to open conditions, which is based on risk pertaining at the time rather than either of these factors. The Secretary of State's decision to allow an ISP to transfer to open conditions is the earliest point at which this progressive move can take place.
iii. Considering each case individually on its merits: Consideration was also given to prioritising each prisoner's position on a case by case basis rather than using specific criteria. It was decided that this would have been extremely time consuming and resource intensive, as well as making it hard to ensure fairness. It would have involved very difficult judgments about the relative merits of each case against all other case. In addition, fresh judgments would have been required about each case in the backlog every time a new case came through where a prisoner had been approved for transfer to open prison by the Secretary of State. Having said that, notwithstanding the prioritisation criterion outlined above, exceptional circumstances are considered upon request, and are reviewed on an individual basis.
iv. Date of Secretary of State approval: Prioritising pre tariff prisoners in this way would mean that prisoners who were approaching tariff expiry could be leapfrogged by other prisoners who were not approaching tariff expiry but who had been approved by the Secretary of State for transfer earlier. This was considered to be unfair to those prisoners approaching tariff expiry who could potentially be released on tariff. ISPs who had been approved for their transfers earlier but whose tariff expiry date was further away had not yet reached the point where they could be considered for release and would not be disadvantaged by waiting longer for a move.
7. Therefore, although NOMS accepts that the criterion of proximity to tariff expiry is not sensitive to some individual factors it was considered to be the fairest, most transparent and most practical means of establishing an order in which to transfer pre tariff ISPs to open conditions.
Implementation of the October 2011 policy
9. We reviewed the approach we were planning to take with pre-tariff prisoners early in 2012 in light of progress made with transferring post tariff prisoners and began the process of referring pre tariff prisoners to PMS for transfer on 3 July. Prioritisation of pre-tariff prisoners is determined by proximity to tariff expiry date; the closer to tariff expiry a prisoners is the higher will be the priority to transfer them. We have increased the amount of referrals made to PMS each month and will continue to monitor progress.
10. At the beginning of the new process, there were around 300 post tariff ISPs located in closed conditions awaiting transfer to open. At the beginning of December 2011 this figure had risen to 405 however as at 30 June this figure had fallen to 243. The current list of post tariff prisoners contains those who have been approved by the Secretary of State for a move to open conditions from late May 2012 onwards. The average waiting time for post tariff prisoners was, prior to the implementation of the central process in October 2011, around 8 to 9 months; this has been reduced to around 3 to 4 months now. The original backlog of post tariff prisoners has been virtually cleared and the majority have either now transferred to open conditions or are unable to transfer due to medical reasons, imminent parole hearings, courses or re-categorisation to category C. The Secretary of State has approved 927 ISPs (both pre and post tariff) for open conditions between the months of October 2011 and June 2012. The number of ISPs being released continues to rise with 173 releases in the first quarter of 2012. This is in comparison with 543 releases during the whole of 2011, 258 in 2010 and 195 in 2009.
11. Turning to the rate at which ISPs are transferred under this exercise, at present the policy remains to refer a minimum of one tranche per month to PMS for action. The estimate of the rate at which the backlog will be reduced was based on the assumption that PMS would be able to organise a transfer for all prisoners in the tranche within a month of submission. We have been monitoring progress carefully and have reviewed this arrangement on a regular basis; if more that 50 prisoners could be safely transferred per month then more would be referred. That has now been reviewed and, beginning in March 2012, we increased the number of referrals to PMS each month to 100 prisoners; in May 2012, over 200 prisoners were transferred. As at 20 June, 914 post tariff prisoners had transferred under the central process. We will continue to monitor progress carefully and review this arrangement on a regular basis; if more than 100 prisoners can be safely transferred per month, as was the case in May 2012, then more be referred.
"28. In respect of individual prisoners, it is important to progress at the right pace. This means ensuring that any ISP sent to open conditions can be managed safely and given appropriate support to help make the progression from restrictive, closed conditions to relaxed, open conditions, often after a long time in custody. In respect of the overall prison population, our primary responsibility is to protect the public. Any measures which resulted in large waves of ISPs being moved into open conditions in an unmanaged way could result in an increase in prisoners absconding and seriously undermine what we are looking to achieve. In addition, NOMS must be mindful of the needs of determinate sentence prisoners, some of whom benefit from a period in an open prison before release, even though their release is not contingent on the direction of the Parole Board.
29. I believe that NOMS made a good response to the problems associated with the lack of movement for ISPs into the open estate. We have taken back central control of the management for ISPs so that they are moved in a transparent and fair way; we have increased the rate of transfers from approximately 50 per month to approximately 150 per month over the past 5 months and will continue at this rate for the immediate future; and we are increasing capacity significantly to allow more opportunity for ISPs to move."
"3. It became clear to us in early 2012 that the initial rate of transfer was not having the desired effect as the rate of movement was not keeping pace with the number of new ISPs being approved for Category D conditions. From February 2012, PMS therefore increased the transfer rate to a target of 100 per month and this was maintained or surpassed through to the end of April 2012. With a view to clearing the backlog as rapidly as could safely be achieved, PMS decided to establish whether there was a tipping point beyond which open establishments found it difficult to manage. We moved a total of 211 prisoners during the course of May 2012. When we did so, however, we began to receive telephone calls from a number of open establishments raising concerns about the increased number of ISPs that they were being required to receive. In particular, concern was raised at the increase in initial Offender Management (OM) work on reception into open prisoners and whether these prisons were able to provide reassurance that all relevant OM work was being undertaken.
4. As a result, we decided to reduce the rate of moves to a target of 150 per month from June onwards. This decision was reached on the basis of the anecdotal evidence available to PMS which indicated that this was the maximum rate at which establishments could safely manage prisoners without putting the public at risk. This rate was maintained through November with the effect that the backlog was cleared by the end of August 2012."
Fettering of discretion
"The underlying rationale of the principle against fettering discretion is to ensure that two perfectly legitimate values of public law, those of legal certainty and consistency (qualities at the heart of the principle of the rule of law) may be balanced by another equally legitimate public law value, namely, that of responsiveness. While allowing rules and policies to promote the former values, it insists that the full rigour of certainty and consistency be tempered by the willingness to make exceptions, to respond flexibly to unusual situations, and to apply justice in the individual case."
"When Parliament confers a discretionary power exercisable from time to time over a period, such power must be exercised on each occasion in the light of the circumstances at that time. In consequence, the person on whom the power is conferred cannot fetter the future exercise of his discretion by committing himself now as to the way in which he will exercise his power in the future. He cannot exercise the power nunc pro tunc. By the same token, the person on whom the power has been conferred cannot fetter the way he will use that power by ruling out of consideration on the future exercise of that power factors which may then be relevant to such exercise.
These considerations do not preclude the person on whom the power is conferred from developing and applying a policy as to the approach which he will adopt in the generality of cases: see Rex v. Port of London Authority, Ex parte Kynoch Ltd  1 KB 176; British Oxygen Co. Ltd. v Board of Trade  AC 610. But the position is different if the policy adopted is such as to preclude the person on whom the power is conferred from departing from the policy or from taking into account circumstances which are relevant to the particular case in relation to which the discretion is being exercised. If such an inflexible and invariable policy is adopted, both the policy and the decisions taken pursuant to it will be unlawful: see generally de Smith, Woolf and Jowell, Judicial Review of Administrative Action, 5th ed. (1995), pp 506 et seq., paras 11-004 et seq."
"34. The rule of law calls for a transparent statement by the executive of the circumstances in which the broad statutory criteria will be exercised….
35. The individual has a basic public law right to have his or her case considered under whatever policy the executive sees fit to adopt provided that the adopted policy is lawful exercise of the discretion conferred by the statute … There is a correlative right to know what that currently existing policy is, so that the individual can make representations in relation to it …
38. … It is common ground that there is no obligation to publish drafts when a policy is evolving and that there might be compelling reasons not to publish some policies, for example, where national security issues are in play. Nor is it necessary to publish details which are irrelevant to the substance of decision made pursuant to the policy. What must, however, be published is that which a person who is affected by the operation of the policy needs to know in order to make informed and meaningful representations to the decision-maker before a decision is made."
Grounds under the Human Rights Act 1998
(1) Article 5
"Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
(a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court…"
(2) Article 8
"1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
"It is possible to draw some general conclusions from these authorities: (i) the right to respect for family life is not a right which the prisoner necessarily loses by reason of his/her incarceration; (ii), on the other hand, when a court considers whether the state's reasons for interfering with that right are relevant and sufficient, it is entitled to take into account (a) the reasonable requirements of prison organisation and security and (b) the desirability of maintaining a uniform regime in prison which avoids any appearance of arbitrariness or discrimination; (iii) whatever the justification for a general rule, Convention law requires the court to consider the application of that rule to the particular case, and to determine whether in that case the interference is proportionate to the particular legitimate aim being pursued; (iv) the more serious the intervention in any given case … the more compelling must be the justification."
(3) Article 14
"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."
a) applying differential release arrangements in the case of a prisoner serving a determinate sentence to those applied when a prisoner is serving a sentence of life imprisonment was potentially discrimination on the basis of "other status" so that Article 14 could be engaged (at ).
b) long-term determinate prisoners and prisoners serving an indeterminate sentence were in an analogous position (at );
c) there was no justification for any difference in treatment between long-term determinate prisoners and prisoners serving an indeterminate sentence (at );
d) Article 14 had been violated by an early release scheme that imposed requirements upon a determinate prisoner that were not imposed in the case of a prisoner serving a life sentence (at ).