Court considers whether EDS’ are discriminatory


Re: R (Stott) v Secretary of State for Justice [2017] EWHC 214 (Admin)

The case challenged the release provisions under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, s 264A. The claimant argued that his sentence breached the ECHR, art 14. It was contended that it was discriminatory as under an extended determinate sentence, he would not be considered for parole until two-thirds of the sentence was served in comparison to a life sentence, where parole is considered after half.

Hugh Southey QC was involved in this case.