Case details

R (on the application of Stott) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for Justice (Respondent)

Case ID: UKSC 2017/0097

Case summary

Issue

Whether, but for the House of Lords decision in R (Clift) v SSHD [2007] 1 AC 484, the statutory provisions on release of extended determinate sentence prisoners are discriminatory and incompatible with Article 14?

Facts

The appellant is currently serving an extended determinate sentence, comprising a custodial term of 21 years and an extension of 4 years, for serious sexual offences involving young children. Pursuant to s.246A Criminal Justice Act 2003, the appellant is entitled to automatic release at the end of his custodial term, (i.e. after 21 years) but he is only eligible to be considered for parole when he has served two-thirds of that custodial term (i.e. after 14 years). Were the appellant an indeterminate sentence prisoner, he would be eligible for parole at the end of his minimum term (s.28 Crime (Sentences) Act 1997), which is normally half the appropriate determinate sentence (i.e., in this case, after 10½ years. Were he a determinate sentence prisoner, he would be automatically released at the half-way point of his sentence, pursuant to s.244 Criminal Justice Act 2003. The appellant invites the Supreme Court to depart from the decision of the House of Lords in Clift and to declare that s.246A of the 2003 Act is incompatible with Article 14 ECHR.

Judgment appealed

[2017] EWCH 214 (Admin)

Parties

Appellant

Frank Stott

Respondent

Secretary of State for Justice

Appeal

Justices

Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge, Lady Black

Hearing start date

18 Jan 2018

Hearing finish date

18 Jan 2018