The House of Lords handed down judgment in the case of R (James and others) v Secretary of State for Justice 08/05/2009 Times Law Reports on 6th May 2009. The appeal from the Court of Appeal’s decision, reported at [2008] 1 WLR 1977, concerned the impact of the indeterminate sentences introduced by section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 c. 44. The appellants were to be detained after the expiry of their tariff period until they could show they were no longer a threat to the general public. As such, they claimed this was contrary to common law and/or article 5 of the ECHR.

Dismissing the appeals, the House stated the Secretary of State had “failed deplorably” in his public law duty by failing to ensure adequate resources to allow prisoners subject to the new sentencing policy the chance to demonstrate they should no longer be detained. However, the House found the common law offered no remedies for the appellants. Further, article 5.4 merely required the standard documentation to be provided to the Parole Board in each case. As the claims under article 5.4 had been either conceded or unopposed, the claims were remitted to the lower court to assess potential damages.