Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorEdwards, RA
dc.date.accessioned2022-06-10T15:07:50Z
dc.date.issued2022-03-09
dc.date.updated2022-06-10T13:48:38Z
dc.description.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.en_GB
dc.format.extent1-20
dc.identifier.citationPublished online 9 March 2022en_GB
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1017/lst.2022.1
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/129905
dc.identifierORCID: 0000-0002-0234-8268 (Edwards, Richard A)
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherCambridge University Pressen_GB
dc.rights© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society of Legal Scholars. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.en_GB
dc.subjecthuman rights lawen_GB
dc.subjectright to liberty and securityen_GB
dc.subjectprison sentencesen_GB
dc.titleJustice for the blackest malefactors? Determinate prison sentences, early release, and the ECHRen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2022-06-10T15:07:50Z
dc.identifier.issn0261-3875
exeter.article-numberPII S0261387522000010
dc.descriptionThis is the final version. Available from Cambridge University Press via the DOI in this record. en_GB
dc.identifier.eissn1748-121X
dc.identifier.journalLegal Studiesen_GB
dc.relation.ispartofLegal Studies
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2022-01-03
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2022-03-09
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2022-06-10T15:05:11Z
refterms.versionFCDVoR
refterms.dateFOA2022-06-10T15:10:34Z
refterms.panelCen_GB
refterms.dateFirstOnline2022-03-09


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society of Legal Scholars. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society of Legal Scholars. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.