Case complete

Simon Creighton’s Notable Cases

R(Quaye) v Secretary of State for Justice [2024] 

Simon acted for the claimant and the High Court had declared that sections 27A(1) and 27A(11) of the Crime (Sentances) Act 1997 are incompatible with Article 5 and 14 of the European Convention.

Z v Sodexo [2020]

Simon acted for a mother and her child who both obtained damages following their separation and removal from a mother and baby unit where they alleged that the proper procedures were not followed.

Debono v Parole Board [2020]

This was a successful judicial review of a parole decision which had failed to properly balance the benefits of a move to open conditions against the risks.

Privacy International v IPT and Foreign Secretary [2019]

Simon acted for Privacy International in this landmark rule of law case in the Supreme Court where it was held that legislation which sought to prevent judicial review of decisions made by the Investigatory Power Tribunal was not valid.

Boparan v Governor of HMP Stoke Heath [2019]

This case clarified the powers to authorise home detention curfew in exceptional circumstances following the issue of a new framework document and resulted in the release of a prisoner where a positive decision had been reversed following a prison transfer.

A v Ministry of Justice [2019]

A prisoner who was transferred in direct breach of guidelines over the movement of prisoners where this would breach religious observance obtained damages in this settled case.

Y v Serco [2019]

A prisoner who alleged that he had been subjected to a strip search based on incorrect information settled his case and received damages from the prison.

Howard League and PAS v Lord Chancellor [2017]

Simon acted for two leading charities in a successful challenge to the restrictions on legal aid for prisoners with the Court of Appeal ruling that the removal of legal aid for certain categories of prison law made the system inherently unfair.

Noye v SSJ [2017]

This was a successful challenge to a ministerial decision to reject a recommendation that a prisoner should be moved to an open prison on the grounds that the decision impermissibly rejected factual findings made by the Board.

Youngsam v Parole Board [2017]

An unsuccessful attempt to argue that the rights protected by Article 5(4) still apply to prisoners serving determinate sentences who have been recalled to prison.

Re: Z [2017]

Damages were obtained for a prisoner who was handcuffed in hospital while recovering from life-threatening injuries.

Intervention in Harkins v UK [2016]

Acting for Reprieve in an intervention before the Grand Chamber concerning the lawfulness of an extradition to the United States when a whole life sentence is likely to be imposed on conviction.

Intervention in Hutchinson v UK [2016]

Acting on behalf of the Prison Litigation Network concerning the extent to which the UK Government has complied with the procedural requirements for the review of whole life sentences.

Re: X [2015]

A case where a prisoner received damages when delays in calling an ambulance meant that she gave birth in her prison cell.

R v H [2015]

A tariff imposed on a young woman serving a sentence of detention at Her Majesty’s Pleasure was reduced by 12 months for exceptional progress.

Winter and BIRW [2014]

Following the issue of proceedings, a settlement was agreed with a national newspaper group in a case alleging unlawful gathering of information, with no admission of liability by the defendant newspapers.

R v ST [2014]

A tariff imposed upon a young person detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure was reduced by 2 years.

C v London Probation Trust [2014]

A successful claim for damages by a man who alleged that the probation service had failed to properly process information that put the reasons for his recall to custody while on licence in doubt.

Vinter v UK [2013]

Successfully challenged the lawfulness of irreducible whole life tariffs with the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights finding that the sentence breached Article 3.

Momcilo Krajisnik [2013]

A successful application for early release made to the President of the ICTY on behalf of the former Bosnian President.

McGetrick v Parole Board [2013]

The Court of Appeal held that the Parole Board has the inherent power to remove prejudicial material from prisoners’ parole dossiers.

A v Home Office [2013]

Substantial damages for false imprisonment and breach of Article 5 were obtained for a man held under a control order for a period of 3 years that was subsequently found to be unlawful.

Vinter v UK [2012]

The ECtHR upheld the power to impose whole life tariffs by a majority of 4-3.

R (BBC) v SSJ and Ahmad [2012]

A successful challenge to the refusal to allow the BBC to film an interview in prison with a detainee.

Sobers v SSJ [2011]

A challenge in the Court of Appeal to the failure of the Secretary of State to provide a pace on an offending behaviour course to a life sentenced prisoner.

ACO v SSHD [2011]

Where damages were obtained for false imprisonment and breach of Article 5 for a man wrongly made subject to a control order.

R v Al-Daour [2011]

A Court of Appeal sentencing appeal concerning the time spent in police custody under the Terrorism Act prior to charge and whether it can be deducted from any subsequent prison sentence.

McIntyre v Press Complaints Commission [2011]

Judicial review proceedings resulted in the Daily Mail printing an apology in relation to an article published about a protester on the student demonstrations.

Black v UK [2011]

Substantial damages secured for a prisoner who was kept in custody by the Secretary of State when recommended for release by the Parole Board.

Re Watson [2010]

The tariff was set for a prisoner serving a life sentence returned from Laos following a conviction for drug smuggling at 6 months, the lowest mandatory lifer tariff ever set.

NW v Parole Board [2010]

A challenge to the refusal to order an early parole review for a woman serving a life sentence with a baby in a prison in the mother and baby unit.

Mackay and McLuckie v SSJ [2010]

The circumstances in which category A prisoners are entitled to oral hearings was further examined.

Wilson v SSJ [2010]

A case which settled before trial where a prisoner sought to challenge the refusal of the prison authorities to allow a journalist from the Guardian to visit him in prison. The prisoner succeeded in having the relevant policy changed.

Coleman v SSJ [2009]

A case that has decided that the Prison Rules do not authorise the destruction of property confiscated from a prisoner, even where the property is unauthorised in a prison.

Black v SSJ [2009]

The House of Lords overruled the Court of Appeal who had issued a declaration that the legislation allowing the Secretary of State to reject Parole Board recommendations for prisoners serving 15 years or over is in breach of Article 5 of the European Convention.

Lane v SSJ [2008]

A case that settled where it was successfully argued that a decision to keep a prisoner who has been campaigning to overturn his conviction as a category A prisoner was inadequately reasoned.

Hill v SSJ [2007]

The High Court held that the policy applied by the SSJ to the transfer of lifers to open conditions was unlawful.

Stellato v Home Secretary [2007]

The House of Lords confirmed that the Criminal Justice Act Act 2003 did not permit the Home Secretary to retrosepctively impose a more stringent licence regime on prisoners sentenced before the Act commenced.

Hammond v Home Secretary [2005]

The House of Lords held that the Criminal Justice Act 2003 had to be re-read to ensure compliance with Article 6 in relation to lifers’ tariffs so as to allow for oral hearings.

Roberts v Parole Board [2005]

A case before the House of Lords concerning the use of special advocates in the parole process and the duty of disclosure to meet the requirements of fairness.

Richards v Home Secretary [2004]

Which established that ECtHR decisions have retrospective effect.

Uttley v Home Secretary

Where the House of Lords held that Article 7 only prevents increases in maximum sentences, not sentences within the maximum available.

Simon has been the supervising partner on a number of landmark cases at Bhatt Murphy including:

Daly v Home Secretary [2002]

Where the House of Lords set the appropriate test for Human Rights Act public law challenges.

V and T v MGN and others [2002]

A case which established the right to life long privacy from the press where personal safety is at risk.

Ezeh and Conners v UK

Where it was held that Article 6 applies to prison disciplinary hearings where additional days can be added to prison sentences.

Contact a member of the Bhatt Murphy team today