Date: 10 December 2002
Neville Charles Waite, a United Kingdom national, was born in 1964 and lives in London. Aged 16, he was convicted of the murder of his grandmother on 12 October 1981. At his trial, he had unsuccessfully raised the defence of diminished responsibility, as he had been addicted to glue sniffing for several years. He was sentenced to detention at Her Majesty’s Pleasure under section 53(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. His tariff (the portion of sentence representing punishment and deterrence) was set at 10 years. On 26 January 1994, aged 29, he was released on life licence.
On 21 July 1997, the Secretary of State accepted a recommendation from the Parole Board to revoke the applicant’s licence and recall him to prison on the grounds that he had been misusing illegal drugs, having a sexual relationship with a minor, failing to maintain contact with his supervising officer and that he had attempted suicide. On 5 September 1997, the Parole Board considered the applicant’s case, without holding an oral hearing, and, on 14 October 1997, upheld the decision to revoke his licence.
In July 1998, the applicant received his parole dossier. On seeking legal advice prior to his Parole Board review, the applicant was advised that the Prison Service had failed to apply the procedure applicable to his recall under the interim arrangements implemented pending the entry into force of the Crime Sentences Act 1997. Under those administrative provisions, he should have received an oral hearing. On 30 September 1998, the applicant applied for judicial review. Leave was granted on 6 October 1998. An oral hearing was held by the Parole Board on 27 October 1998, at which the applicant was present and represented. He was released on 17 November 1998.
On 21 December 1999, the applicant was again recalled to prison, following his arrest for possession of a Class A drug (ecstasy) and a Class B drug (cannabis). His recall was recommended by the Parole Board. He is currently being detained in an open prison.
The applicant alleged that he had no oral hearing when he was recalled to prison, that the grounds of his recall were discriminatory, not connected with the purpose of his sentence and that he had no opportunity to obtain compensation or any remedy. He relied on Articles 5 §§ 1, 4 and 5 (right to liberty and security), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Citation: Waite v the United Kingdom (App no 53236/99) ECHR 10 December 2002
(from the official press-release prepared by the Registry Office of the European Court of Human Rights)
© 2024 Human Rights and Drugs.