Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Life Subscription:
Rs. 12,000/-
Subscribers/Donors/Advertisers may
send their Cheque/DD/MO in favour
of LAW ANIMATED WORLD to
I. BALAMANI, Publisher,
Law Animated World, 6-3-1243/156,
M.S. Makta, Opposite Raj Bhavan,
HYDERABAD - 500 082.
[Rs. 75/- to be added for outstation cheques]
15 January 2015
No. 1
Netanyahu (Israel),
to the intrepid French Martyrs the Editor, cartoonists, press staff and
Ahmed (the Muslim policeman), the twelve apostles for liberty who laid
down their lives in the dastardly terrorist attack on 7 January 2015 by two
religious fanatic gunmen in Paris, supposedly belonging to the dreaded
terrorist organization, al-Qaeda. More than three million people including
40 world leaders led by the French President, Franois Hollande, and
including the leaders of both the warring states Benjamin Netanyahu of
Israel and Mohammed Abbas of Palestinian Authority paid glowing
tributes in Paris to the memory of these martyrs, particularly the fearless
editor Charb and other cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo - many of them
atheist leftists, who persevered in their struggle for liberty amidst all death
threats. The fanatics forgot to note that any religion and any community
culture has to keep pace with changing times and cannot and should not
stick to its old rigid customs, traditions, etc. which have become a big fetter
and burden for its progress as also to the rest of humanity. Some people do
think Mohammed might have been progressive in some respects but was
also regressive in other respects, like in hating polytheism, in concentrating
on jihads, and his treatment of Jews, kafirs, etc. So, some reformers/critics
may begin with and persist in criticism or even mockery of this prophet
himself. Anyway, depiction of Mohammeds figure was not an offence, let
alone a sacrilege, even in early Islamic times as a number of paintings of
that period, officially encouraged and exhibited, show. So, if some journals
make a mockery of Mohammed especially if they are by non-Muslims
there is no need for Muslim orthodox to be so irate and jerky. They should
learn to take it all as a part of the process for securing and enjoying more
and more freedom of speech and human rights in present times that
includes freedom to offend even. In extreme cases of hate-speech/arts, they
can take resort to statutory provisions in the laws of the land [in which they
reside] for stringent/needed action against persons committing such
offences rather than resort to wild shouting and ruthless killings. We join
the millions in the world paying tributes to the Charlie Hebdo martyrs and
vow to fight for freedom of speech and expression.
1
Wish you a Happy New Year and Prosperous Pongal (Sankranti) 2015!
(2015) 1 LAW
- Glen Ford
*****
2
- George Packer
A tribute at the Place de la Republique, in Paris, to victims killed in the attack at Charlie Hebdo.
Courtesy: Aurelien Meunier/Getty
***
(2015) 1 LAW
(2015) 1 LAW
tarek-fatah-and-blasphemous-in-islam-say-no/
http://tarekfatah.com/does-the-quran-say-its-blasphemous-to-depict-prophet-muhammad-in-images-
*****
*****
5
(2015) 1 LAW
Let us keep this hard won right which cost so many lives in
history, and, alas, still does - as Charlie Hebdo's twelve
Karima Bennoune, Professor and Martin Luther King Jr. Hall Research
Scholar, University of California, Davis School of Law
of Ex-Muslims of France
*****
6
- K. Pratap Reddy
(2015) 1 LAW
A contra opinion:
like sparks, or like wine congealed with ice, and emeralds like
fresh sprigs of myrtle, and diamonds in size and weight like
pomegranates.
10
(2015) 1 LAW
*****
10
(2015) 1 LAW
R [On applications of Haney, Kaiyam, Massey & Robinson] v. Secretary of State for Justice [UK-SC]
JUDGMENT
Mance dissenting).
Lord Mance and Lord Hughes give the unanimous
judgment in the appeals of Haney, Kaiyam and
Massey.
Lord Hughes (with whom Lord Neuberger, Lord
Toulson and Lord Hodge agree) gives a separate lead
judgment in the Robinson appeal. Lord Mance
delivers a dissenting judgment.
F-1
11
F-2
R [On applications of Haney, Kaiyam, Massey & Robinson] v. Secretary of State for Justice [UK-SC]
Michaelmas Term
[2014] UKSC 66
On appeals from:[2013] EWCA Civ 1587; [2013]
EWHC 3777 (Admin)
JUDGMENT
R (on the applications of Haney, Kaiyam, and
Massey) (Appellants) v The Secretary of State for
Justice (Respondent)
R (on the application of Robinson) (Appellant) v
The Governor of HMP Whatton and The
Secretary of State for Justice (Respondents)
before
Lord Neuberger, President
Lord Mance
Lord Hughes
Lord Toulson
Lord Hodge
JUDGMENT GIVEN ON
10 December 2014
Heard on 19, 20 and 21 May 2014
Appellant (Haney)
Hugh Southey QC
Jude Bunting
(Instructed by Michael
Purdon Solicitors)
Respondent
James Eadie QC
Hanif Mussa
David Lowe
(Instructed by Treasury
Solicitors)
***
Robinson
Lord Hughes holds that Robinsons delay in being able
to commence an extended sexual offenders treatment
programme until nearly nine months after the expiry of his
tariff period did not breach his article 5 rights. The
***
Law Animated World, 15 January 2015
(2015) 1 LAW
12
(2015) 1 LAW
R [On applications of Haney, Kaiyam, Massey & Robinson] v. Secretary of State for Justice [UK-SC]
F-3
(c)
F-4
R [On applications of Haney, Kaiyam, Massey & Robinson] v. Secretary of State for Justice [UK-SC]
(2015) 1 LAW
summary:
(a) Mr Haney complains under article 5 that he was
only transferred to open prison conditions on
or around 16th July 2012, too close to the
expiry date of his minimum term to allow
release immediately upon such expiry. The
Secretary of State conceded that a systemic
failure (to provide adequately for the increase
in numbers of prisoners serving indeterminate
terms) had led to excessive delay in
transferring him to open conditions, and Lang J
14
(2015) 1 LAW
R [On applications of Haney, Kaiyam, Massey & Robinson] v. Secretary of State for Justice [UK-SC]
F-5
F-6
R [On applications of Haney, Kaiyam, Massey & Robinson] v. Secretary of State for Justice [UK-SC]
(2015) 1 LAW
(2015) 1 LAW
R [On applications of Haney, Kaiyam, Massey & Robinson] v. Secretary of State for Justice [UK-SC]
F-7
and that
It cannot be assumed that, if the violations
had not occurred, the applicants would not
have been deprived of their liberty. It also
logically follows that once the applicants were
transferred to first stage prisons and had timeous
access to relevant courses, their detention once
again became lawful. (para 244)
F-8
R [On applications of Haney, Kaiyam, Massey & Robinson] v. Secretary of State for Justice [UK-SC]
(2015) 1 LAW
[2010] 2 AC 373.
19. The position was summarised by Lord
Neuberger in Manchester City Corporation v
Pinnock [2010] UKSC 45, [2011] 2 AC 104, as
follows:
48. This Court is not bound to follow every decision of
the European court. Not only would it be impractical to
do so: it would sometimes be inappropriate, as it
(2015) 1 LAW
R [On applications of Haney, Kaiyam, Massey & Robinson] v. Secretary of State for Justice [UK-SC]
F-9
F-10
R [On applications of Haney, Kaiyam, Massey & Robinson] v. Secretary of State for Justice [UK-SC]
(2015) 1 LAW
20
(2015) 1 LAW
R [On applications of Haney, Kaiyam, Massey & Robinson] v. Secretary of State for Justice [UK-SC]
F-11
F-12
R [On applications of Haney, Kaiyam, Massey & Robinson] v. Secretary of State for Justice [UK-SC]
(2015) 1 LAW
22
(2015) 1 LAW
R [On applications of Haney, Kaiyam, Massey & Robinson] v. Secretary of State for Justice [UK-SC]
F-13
F-14
R [On applications of Haney, Kaiyam, Massey & Robinson] v. Secretary of State for Justice [UK-SC]
(2015) 1 LAW
24
(2015) 1 LAW
R [On applications of Haney, Kaiyam, Massey & Robinson] v. Secretary of State for Justice [UK-SC]
F-15
F-16
R [On applications of Haney, Kaiyam, Massey & Robinson] v. Secretary of State for Justice [UK-SC]
Haney - article 5
(2015) 1 LAW
(2015) 1 LAW
R [On applications of Haney, Kaiyam, Massey & Robinson] v. Secretary of State for Justice [UK-SC]
F-17
Haney discrimination
F-18
R [On applications of Haney, Kaiyam, Massey & Robinson] v. Secretary of State for Justice [UK-SC]
(2015) 1 LAW
(2015) 1 LAW CM & MD, Central Bank of India & Ors. v. CBI SC/ST Employees Assn. & Ors. [IND-SC]
Appellant(s)
Versus
Central Bank of India SC/ST
Employees Welfare Association
& Ors.
Respondent(s).
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 320 OF 2010
IN
SPECIAL LEVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 5046 OF 2010
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 210 OF 2015
(arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4483 of 2010)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 211 OF 2015
(arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5046 of 2010)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 212 OF 2015
(arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6002 of 2010)
AND
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 213 OF 2015
(arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6125 of 2010)
Civil Appeal No. of 2015 & Ors. Page 1 of 36
(arising out of SLP (C) No. 4385 of 2010 & Ors.)
CORAM:
J. CHELAMESWAR, J.
A.K. SIKRI, J.
***
Head Notes:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Article 16 of the Constitution
and reservations in promotions to the SCs/STs two
constitutional amendments brought to nullify the effect of
two Constitution Bench judgments of the Apex Court one
denying reservations in promotions and the other denying
ISC-1
ISC-2
CM & MD, Central Bank of India & Ors. v. CBI SC/ST Employees Assn. & Ors. [IND-SC] (2015) 1 LAW
instant case The Union Government issued two office
30
(2015) 1 LAW CM & MD, Central Bank of India & Ors. v. CBI SC/ST Employees Assn. & Ors. [IND-SC]
ISC-3
JUDGMENT
A.K. SIKRI, J.
1) Leave granted. Impleadment and intervention
applications are allowed.
2) The issue which arises for consideration in
these appeals lies within a narrow campus and is
crisp one, though at the same time it is of seminal
importance for the parties before us. It relates to
the rule of reservation of the Scheduled Castes
(SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) in the promotion
in the officer grade/scale in the appellant Banks.
There is no dispute that the appellant Banks,
which are statutory/public sector banks, are
following the applicable guidelines of the Central
Government pertaining to reservation of SC and
ST employees insofar as their promotion from
clerical grade to officer grade is concerned. The
question to be answered is as to whether there is
any reservation in the promotions from one
officer grade/scale to another grade/scale, when
such promotions are made on selection basis. As
per the appellant Banks, there is no rule of
reservation for promotion in the Class A (Class-I)
to the posts/scales having basic salary of more
than 5,700/- and in the relevant instructions,
issued in the form of Office Memoranda, only a
concession is provided in the manner officers
belonging to SC/ST category are to be considered
for promotion. To put it otherwise, the position
taken by the Banks is that there is no rule of
reservation for promotions and the candidature of
these officers belonging to these categories for
promotion is to be considered on the basis of
relaxed standards. The respondents, who are
SC/ST Employees' Unions of the appellant Banks
or individuals belonging to such categories,
dispute the aforesaid stand taken by the Banks.
According to them, the circular issued by the
Central Government expressly provides for such
a reservation.
3) It is interesting to note that for taking their
respective positions both the parties rely upon
O.M. dated 13-08-1997 issued by the Central
Government (which, of course, is to be read along
with other connected office memoranda). Thus,
ISC-4
CM & MD, Central Bank of India & Ors. v. CBI SC/ST Employees Assn. & Ors. [IND-SC] (2015) 1 LAW
32
(2015) 1 LAW CM & MD, Central Bank of India & Ors. v. CBI SC/ST Employees Assn. & Ors. [IND-SC]
ISC-5
ISC-6
CM & MD, Central Bank of India & Ors. v. CBI SC/ST Employees Assn. & Ors. [IND-SC] (2015) 1 LAW
Impugned Judgment
(2015) 1 LAW CM & MD, Central Bank of India & Ors. v. CBI SC/ST Employees Assn. & Ors. [IND-SC]
ISC-7
35
ISC-8
CM & MD, Central Bank of India & Ors. v. CBI SC/ST Employees Assn. & Ors. [IND-SC] (2015) 1 LAW
36
(2015) 1 LAW CM & MD, Central Bank of India & Ors. v. CBI SC/ST Employees Assn. & Ors. [IND-SC]
position of such candidates included in the select
list would, however, be the same as is assigned
to them by the Departmental Promotion
Committee on the basis of their record of service.
The said candidates would not be entitled, for the
purpose of the said selection, one grading higher
than the grading otherwise assignable to them on
the basis of their record of service. This is also
the purport of para 9 of the Brochure insofar as it
deals with promotions within Class I.
ISC-9
ISC-10
CM & MD, Central Bank of India & Ors. v. CBI SC/ST Employees Assn. & Ors. [IND-SC] (2015) 1 LAW
38
(2015) 1 LAW CM & MD, Central Bank of India & Ors. v. CBI SC/ST Employees Assn. & Ors. [IND-SC]
ISC-11
ISC-12
CM & MD, Central Bank of India & Ors. v. CBI SC/ST Employees Assn. & Ors. [IND-SC] (2015) 1 LAW
40
(2015) 1 LAW CM & MD, Central Bank of India & Ors. v. CBI SC/ST Employees Assn. & Ors. [IND-SC]
ISC-13
ISC-14
CM & MD, Central Bank of India & Ors. v. CBI SC/ST Employees Assn. & Ors. [IND-SC] (2015) 1 LAW
AN APPEAL
We request all our readers, friends and wellwishers to liberally subscribe to/ contribute for
and advertise in this unique type of journal
and also aid in increasing its circulation. We
also request that scholarly articles on any
aspect of law and society, preferably with
comparative international study, be sent to us.
ADVERTISEMENT TARIFF:
Full inner cover page
: Rs. 12,000/Ordinary full page
: Rs. 10,000/Ordinary half page
: Rs. 5000/Cheques/DDs to be sent in favour of:
FRONTIER
Editor: TIMIR BASU
A radical leftist weekly being published
since the last 45 years from Calcutta
Annual subscription
:
Rs. 350/Associate Membership
:
Rs. 600/- (annual)
Life subscription
:
Rs. 4000/-+
Advertisement Tariff
Outer Cover
:
Rs. 5000/Inner cover
:
Rs. 4000/Full page
:
Rs. 3000/Half page
:
Rs. 2000/-.
For details contact:
FRONTIER,
61 Mott Lane, KOLKATA - 700013 (W.B.)
Ph: 033 - 22653202; E-mail: frontierweekly@hotmail.com
frontierweekly@yahoo.co.in
Website: www.geocities.com/frontierweekly
*****
Law Animated World, 15 January 2015
42
(2015) 1 LAW
Appellant(s)
Respondent(s).
Versus
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 35 OF 2015
(arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3161 of 2013)
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 36-37 OF 2015
(arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3326-3327 of 2013)
CORAM:
ISC-15
ISC-16
(2015) 1 LAW
***
44
(2015) 1 LAW
ISC-17
JUDGMENT
A.K. SIKRI, J.
1. Leave granted.
Introduction:
2. In the year 2008, during the tenure of the then
Minister of Telecommunications, Unified Access
Services Licenses (UASL) were granted. After
sometime, an information was disclosed to the
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) alleging
various forms of irregularities committed in
connection with the grant of the said UASL
which resulted in huge losses to the public
exchequer. On the basis of such source
information, the CBI registered a case bearing RC
DAI 2009 A 0045 on 21st October, 2009. It is
now widely known as 2G Spectrum Scam Case. The
case was registered against unknown officers of
the Department of Telecommunications (DOT) as
well as unknown private persons and companies.
3. While the investigation into the said case was
still on, a writ petition was filed by an NGO
known as Center for Public Interest Litigation
(CPIL) before the High Court of Delhi seeking
directions for a Court monitored investigation.
Apprehension of the petitioner was that without
such a monitoring by the Court, there may not be
a fair and impartial investigation. Delhi High
Court dismissed the petition.
4. Challenging the order of the Delhi High Court,
CPIL filed Special Leave Petition before this
Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of
India. At that time, another petitioner, Dr.
Subramanian Swamy, directly approached the
Supreme Court by way of a writ petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking
almost the same reliefs on similar kinds of
allegations. Leave was granted in the said SLP,
converting it into a civil appeal. Said civil appeal
and writ petition were taken up together for
analogous hearing. On 16th December, 2010, a
detailed interim order was passed in the civil
appeal inter alia giving the following directions:
45
ISC-18
7. On completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed by the CBI in the Court of Shri
O.P. Saini, the learned Special Judge, on 21st
December, 2012.
8. Before proceeding further, it would be prudent
to mention in brief the case set up by the CBI in
the charge-sheet to have the flavour of the
prosecution case. Though we are not much
concerned about the merits of the allegations in
(2015) 1 LAW
46
(2015) 1 LAW
ISC-19
ISC-20
has also revealed that all this was done in haste to help
M/s Bharti Cellular Limited which had come out with
Initial Public Offer (IPO) that was opened and it was
not getting good response from the public as it had
remained under-subscribed. The moment such a
decision of allocating additional spectrum was taken on
31.01.2002, on the very next day, the issue got oversubscribed.
(emphasis ours)
(2015) 1 LAW
48
(2015) 1 LAW
ISC-21
ISC-22
2
3
(2011) 1 SCC 74
(2010) 10 SCC 479
(2015) 1 LAW
50
(2015) 1 LAW
ISC-23
ISC-24
(2015) 1 LAW
52
(1993) 2 SCC 16
(2015) 1 LAW
ISC-25
ISC-26
(2015) 1 LAW
54
(2015) 1 LAW
ISC-27
10
55
ISC-28
(2015) 1 LAW
(2015) 1 LAW
ISC-29
57
ISC-30
(2015) 1 LAW
(2015) 1 LAW
ISC-31
ISC-32
(2015) 1 LAW
60
(2015) 1 LAW
ISC-33
14
17
15
18
61
ISC-34
(2015) 1 LAW
19
20
62
(2015) 1 LAW
ISC-35
21
63
ISC-36
***
ITEM NO. 1A
COURT NO. 1
SECTION II
(For Judgment)
SUPREMECOURTOFINDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 34 OF 2015
@ Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 2961 of 2013
Sunil Mittal .. Appellant(s)
vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation ..Respondent(s)
WITH
EPILOGUE
(2015) 1 LAW
*****
64
(2015) 1 LAW
R [On applications of Haney, Kaiyam, Massey & Robinson] v. Secretary of State for Justice [UK-SC]
F-19
( Carried from p. 28 )
F-20
R [On applications of Haney, Kaiyam, Massey & Robinson] v. Secretary of State for Justice [UK-SC]
(2015) 1 LAW
66
(2015) 1 LAW
R [On applications of Haney, Kaiyam, Massey & Robinson] v. Secretary of State for Justice [UK-SC]
F-21
F-22
R [On applications of Haney, Kaiyam, Massey & Robinson] v. Secretary of State for Justice [UK-SC]
(2015) 1 LAW
68
(2015) 1 LAW
R [On applications of Haney, Kaiyam, Massey & Robinson] v. Secretary of State for Justice [UK-SC]
F-23
F-24
R [On applications of Haney, Kaiyam, Massey & Robinson] v. Secretary of State for Justice [UK-SC]
(2015) 1 LAW
Massey
(2015) 1 LAW
R [On applications of Haney, Kaiyam, Massey & Robinson] v. Secretary of State for Justice [UK-SC]
F-25
cognitive skills booster course and a proofreading course with a view to post-release
employment. He is a well behaved prisoner, and
has taken on leadership roles as Activities Coordinator, organising games and events, and as
editor of the Prison Magazine. In July 2010 a
long and thoughtful Structured Assessment of
Risk and Need (SARN) report was prepared
upon him by a forensic psychologist. It recorded
some progress in recognising his pattern of sexual
thoughts and fantasies and towards a degree of
victim empathy. On the other hand, concern was
noted that he asserted that he now had no sexual
thoughts about teenage males, which was
unlikely since sexual interests are hard to change.
There had been an apparently dramatic shift in his
attitude towards his offending in a very short time
as a consequence of the CSOTP, whereas the
view was taken that three decades of behaviour
and interests were unlikely to be reversed by
a single programme. The SARN report
recommended assessment to see whether the
ESOTP would be suitable, as well as suggesting
the likely desirability of a following Better Lives
Booster (BLB) programme and a PCL-R
assessment for psychopathy to inform
responsivity. In due course the Offender Manager
concurred and offered tight suggested licence
terms for release when it occurred.
66. Shortly after the SARN, the National
Offender Management Service wrote formally to
Massey in October 2010, accepting its
recommendations. Whilst cautioning him that the
Secretary of State could not guarantee to place
him on the specific courses recommended, given
the limits on resources, the letter formally set the
time for his Parole Board review at 24 months,
and set out a timetable on which this was based,
namely two months for the PCL-R assessment, 10
months to complete ESOTP including
assessment and waiting list, six months for the
BLB, again including assessment and waiting list,
and six months afterwards for post-programme
testing and the completion of reports. That would
have meant a Parole Board hearing in or about
F-26
R [On applications of Haney, Kaiyam, Massey & Robinson] v. Secretary of State for Justice [UK-SC]
(2015) 1 LAW
Robinson
(2015) 1 LAW
R [On applications of Haney, Kaiyam, Massey & Robinson] v. Secretary of State for Justice [UK-SC]
F-27
F-28
R [On applications of Haney, Kaiyam, Massey & Robinson] v. Secretary of State for Justice [UK-SC]
(2015) 1 LAW
74
(2015) 1 LAW
R [On applications of Haney, Kaiyam, Massey & Robinson] v. Secretary of State for Justice [UK-SC]
F-29
Outcome
F-30
R [On applications of Haney, Kaiyam, Massey & Robinson] v. Secretary of State for Justice [UK-SC]
***
LORD HUGHES: (with whom Lord Neuberger,
Lord Toulson and Lord Hodge agree)
(2015) 1 LAW
(2015) 1 LAW
R [On applications of Haney, Kaiyam, Massey & Robinson] v. Secretary of State for Justice [UK-SC]
F-31
F-32
R [On applications of Haney, Kaiyam, Massey & Robinson] v. Secretary of State for Justice [UK-SC]
(2015) 1 LAW
(2015) 1 LAW
R [On applications of Haney, Kaiyam, Massey & Robinson] v. Secretary of State for Justice [UK-SC]
F-33
***
LORD MANCE:
94. I have the misfortune to differ from Lord
Hughes and the majority on the disposition of
Robinsons appeal. The basic facts are set out in
paras 71-83 of the joint judgment written with
Lord Hughes. The test is whether Robinson was
supplied with a reasonable opportunity to
demonstrate that he was no longer a risk.
95. It was of the nature of his offending that he
received a sentence involving a relatively long tariff
period which expired on 10 December 2012. It was
of the nature of his character and propensities that,
despite some encouraging signs, he remained in
identified respects a high risk after completing the
CSOTP in 2008. The psychologists report dated 9
July 2008 made a recommendation in the body of
her report, that a full psychopathy assessment
[PCL-R] is competed prior to Mr Robinson
undertaking any further treatment (para 4.6), but
ended the report with unqualified recommendations
and a conclusion dealing exclusively with the
ESOTP as follows:
F-34
R [On applications of Haney, Kaiyam, Massey & Robinson] v. Secretary of State for Justice [UK-SC]
(11 May 2004) the court had held (para 66) that even
a delay of six months in the admission of the applicant
to a custodial clinic could not be regarded as
acceptable in the absence of evidence of an
exceptional and unforeseen situation on the part of the
authorities.
101. In the present case, the Administrative Court
also noted that the public law duty was only to make
reasonable provision of services and resources for
the relevant purpose and was not an absolute one
(para 55). It went on:
59. It is clear from the factual circumstances of the
claimants' own cases, and from the general
evidence we have summarised concerning systems
and resources, that a serious problem still exists in
relation to the provision of ESOTP courses which
many sex offenders serving an IPP need to
complete before they can have any realistic
prospect of demonstrating to the Parole Board that
they are safe for release. The delays experienced by
these two claimants are troubling in themselves.
Despite pressure over a lengthy period, neither
claimant managed to get admitted to an ESOTP
course until after the expiry of his tariff period (in
Mr Massey's case, almost three years after its
expiry); and since, after completion of the course,
each of them has to wait for a substantial further
period until their next Parole Board review, their
first reasonable opportunity to demonstrate to the
Parole Board that they are safe to be released will
come long after the expiry of their tariffs.
60. It is clear that the claimants' experience is far
from exceptional. The evidence summarised at
paras 34ff. above shows that the number of IPP
prisoners with a requirement for an ESOTP greatly
exceeds the number of placements available on
ESOTP courses and that many such prisoners are
failing to get onto courses until after the expiry of
their tariff periods. In some cases the delay can no
doubt be explained by reasons specific to the
individual prisoner, but the under-provision of
courses appears to us to be the primary reason for
delay and to be accurately described as a systemic
problem. Nor is there any immediate prospect of
improvement. On the contrary, we have noted at
para 45 above that at HMP Whatton demand for
places on ESOTP courses is set to rise as the
provision of places has fallen.
61. We understand the tight financial situation
across the entire prison estate and the difficulty of
allocating limited resources between a range of
(2015) 1 LAW
80
(2015) 1 LAW
R [On applications of Haney, Kaiyam, Massey & Robinson] v. Secretary of State for Justice [UK-SC]
F-35
F-36
R [On applications of Haney, Kaiyam, Massey & Robinson] v. Secretary of State for Justice [UK-SC]
(2015) 1 LAW
110. Each case must turn on its own facts, and the
case of Hall v UK, cited by Lord Hughes, involved
shorter delays - with regard to the provision of an
ESOTP, a delay of at most about 18 months from
March 2008 when an ESOTP was identified as
appropriate to some time, probably, in autumn 2009
when the six to eight month course must have been
commenced (judgment, paras 8 and 13). The
applicants detention had been coupled over the
course of the time spent in detention with regular
access to a wide range of courses designed to assist
him in addressing his offending behaviour and
demonstrating a reduction of his risk to the
satisfaction of the Parole Board (Hall v UK, para 33)
and it had also been complicated by a continuing
series of minor offences committed in prison (Hall v
UK, paras 7, 18 and 19).
681
83
84
685
(2015) 1 LAW
84
(2015) 1 LAW
85
692
693
694
695
piezoelectric-railways-harvest-energy-from-passing-trains/)
www.greenprophet.com/2010/09/piezoelectric-generatorselectric-cars/)
696
687
697
698
699
85
86
702
(2015) 1 LAW
86
(2015) 1 LAW
society would eventually mean less labor-forincome, less turnover and less profit on the
whole. If society woke up tomorrow to a world
where 50% of the human job market was automated
and where all food, energy and basic goods could be
made available without a price tag due to increased
efficiency, needless to say the job market and
monetary economy as we know it would collapse.
Value Shift
705
87
(http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/11/15/un.hunger/)
707
88
(2015) 1 LAW
712
713
88
(2015) 1 LAW
Efficiency Amplifiers
89
715
90
(2015) 1 LAW
(to be continued)
716
717
90
91
(2015) 1 LAW
- Adam Hashian
the villagers pay for their usage via mobile money. They
essentially operate like a modern utility company. Another
*****
91
92
***
YO NO PUEDO
OLVIDAR NUNCA...
(Verso XIV)
Yo no puedo olvidar nunca
La maanita de otoo
En que le sali un retoo
A la pobre rama trunca.
La maanita en que, en vano,
Junto a la estufa apagada,
Una nia enamorada
Le tendi al viejo la mano.
***
***
***
I'll Never Forget, I Vow
SI VES UN MONTE DE
ESPUMAS... (Verso V)
(Verse XIV)
[*Jos Julin Mart Prez (January 28, 1853 - May 19, 1895) is
a Cuban national hero, sometimes called the Apostle of Cuban
Revolution, an important figure in Latin American literature; was
a poet, an essayist, a revolutionary philosopher, a translator, a
professor, a publisher and a political theorist, an all-in-one
combination.]
*****
*****
Owned, Printed and Published by I. Balamani, 6-3-1243/156, M.S. Makta, Opposite Raj Bhavan,
Hyderabad - 500082; Editor: I. Mallikarjuna Sharma; Ph: 23300284; E-mail: mani.bal44@gmail.com
andprinted at Pragati Offset Pvt. Ltd., Red Hills, Hyderabad-500 004 {Ph: 23304835, 23380000}
92