부산대학교 도서관

This, the first of two articles on recent developments in prison law, discusses: (1) The Administrative Court decision in R. (on the application of Ramsden) v Secretary of State for the Home Department on whether a recall during a home detention curfew period should be made under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.254 or s.255. (2) The Administrative Court decision in R. (on the application of Highton) v Governor of HYMOI Lancaster Farms on the calculation of an offender's automatic release date and eligibility for home detention curfew where a number of different sentences had been imposed, some consecutive and some concurrent, including some under 12 months. (3) The Administrative Court decision in R. (on the application of Chindamo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department on whether the transfer of a life prisoner from an open prison following a policy announcement relating to all foreign national prisoners breached the prisoner's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Art.8. (4) The European Court of Human Rights rulings in Tarariyeva v Russia (4353/03), on whether the death in custody of the applicant's son, and the prison authorities' failure to provide him with appropriate medical treatment, violated his right to life, and Istratii and Others v Moldova (8721/05), on prison conditions. (5) The House of Lords ruling in Beggs v Scottish Ministers on whether the court had been right to order the appearance in court of two high ranking prison service officials where ministers had been found to be in contempt of court regarding the breach of an undertaking that prison staff would not open a prisoner's correspondence.