ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
(LADY JUSTICE HALLETT DBE & MR JUSTICE JACK)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2
B E F O R E:
LORD JUSTICE LONGMORE
LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER
LORD JUSTICE HUGHES
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF STELLATO
CLAIMANT/APPLICANT
- v -
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
(DAR Transcript of
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MS P KAUFMAN (instructed by Messrs Bhatt Murphy) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
MR P PATEL (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
J U D G M E N T
LORD JUSTICE LONGMORE: The judgments of the court have been prepared in written form and I will hand down the judgments which have been so prepared. There is one small correction that we need to make to paragraph 39 of Scott-Baker LJ’s judgment. The last few words of that paragraph, see para 26(4) and 35 supra, 35 should read 34. The order of the court then, which in the light of the judgments has been agreed as we understand it, is:
“THAT:
“1. The appeal is allowed;
“2. There be a declaration that:-
“(1) In respect of any prisoner whose offences were committed before 30 September 1998, and who is recalled to prison after 4 April 2005, section 37(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 Act continues to govern the duration of his licence following any re-release;
“(2) Following the appellant’s release on 23 December 2005, his licence expired on 27 December 2005 pursuant to section 37(1) of the 1991 Act;
“(3) The Appellant’s recall to prison on 6 January 2006 was unlawful, his detention since then has, at all times, been unlawful and he is entitled to immediate release.
“3. The Respondent pay the Appellant’s costs of the appeal and the proceedings in the Administrative Court, to be subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.
“4. There be a detailed assessment of the Appellant’s publicly funded costs in accordance with Regulation 107 of the Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1989 pursuant to the Community Legal Service (Funding) Order 2000.
So that is the judgment of the court.
(discussion between counsel and judges)
Firstly, we refuse permission to appeal to the House of Lords because we consider that this is the sort of case which traditionally it is more appropriate for the House of Lords to consider whether or not they wish to take than for this court to impose upon them.
Secondly, we will stay the implementation of our order until midday on 21 December on the following conditions:
1) That the Secretary of State lodge a petition of appeal to the House of Lords within seven days if so advised, and;
2) That bail be granted to Mr Stellato with conditions as to:
a) residence;
b) reporting to a named police station every 24 hours;
c) that he does not leave the jurisdiction of this court, or apply for any documents entitling him to do so, and surrenders any such travel documents he has to the treasury solicitor; and
d) such conditions as to contacting any named persons which may be appropriate.
All such conditions to be satisfactory to the Secretary of State or in default of agreement to Hughes LJ, who will consult with members of this court as available and that generally there be liberty to apply.
We do think that in the circumstances it is appropriate that our order should be stayed as requested to enable the House of Lords to decide if they wish to take this case, but we do think in the circumstances that it is appropriate that Mr Stellato should be granted conditional bail in the way we have described.
Order: Appeal allowed.