Abstract
AbstractIn the light of the High Court's decision in R (Khan) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] 1 WLR 3932 this paper contends that a revised approach to the interpretation of Articles 5 and 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights is needed. The paper argues that the Article 5 ECHR right to liberty and security plays a developing, though overlooked, role in the context of regulating determinate prison sentences. English law's conclusion that Article 5 of the ECHR has little to offer in this context is wrong and needs to be reconsidered. Equally, a more generous interpretation of Article 7 of the ECHR is now required: an approach which reflects the reality of determinate sentences.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Reference8 articles.
1. The paths of offender rehabilitation and the European dimension of punishment: New challenges for an old ideal?
2. The rule against retrospective legislation: a basic principle of jurisprudence;Smead;Minnesota Law Review,1936
3. Parole in Transition: A Comparative Study of Origins, Developments, and Prospects for the 1990s
4. The right to security of person in European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence;Powell;European Human Rights Law Review,2007
5. Overblown: exploring the gap between the fear of terrorist recidivism and the evidence;Renard;CTC Sentinel,2020