The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that the continued detention of two British prisoners, Christopher Stanton and Raymond Bowen, following Parole Board decisions to release them, did not violate their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. The court delivered its unanimous judgment on September 22, 2026.
Both Stanton and Bowen, British nationals from Newport, south Wales, were serving indeterminate sentences and had completed their minimum terms. Their release was contingent upon a risk assessment by the Parole Board, which granted conditional release subject to residency at designated approved premises—special accommodation for high-risk offenders released on licence.
Delays arose due to the unavailability of bed spaces at the Mandeville approved premises in Cardiff. Stanton was detained 118 days beyond the Parole Board's directive, and Bowen was held an additional 69 days before their eventual release. Both men initiated legal challenges, alleging breaches of domestic law under section 28 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 and violations of Article 5, paragraphs 1 and 4 of the European Convention, which protect the right to liberty.
Their claims were initially dismissed by the High Court in 2016, and subsequent appeals to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court were unsuccessful on Convention grounds, leading to the referral of the case to the ECHR in Strasbourg.
In its assessment, the ECHR considered three main arguments: whether the detention was lawful under domestic law; whether the legal framework met the Convention’s standards of foreseeability and clarity; and whether the delay between the Parole Board’s decision and actual release undermined the causal link between detention and the original grounds for imprisonment.
The court confirmed that the applicants’ detention complied with substantive and procedural national law requirements. It also found that domestic law was sufficiently clear in informing the prisoners that their release depended on the availability of approved premises, making the delay foreseeable.
Regarding the causal connection, the court noted that indeterminate sentences were imposed due to the perceived risk both individuals posed to public safety. The continued detention while awaiting accommodation reflected these ongoing risk concerns and did not sever the link between their convictions and detention.
The court acknowledged that the release system in England for indeterminate sentence prisoners combines Parole Board approval with the provision of secure accommodation, inherently requiring some delay. It emphasized that resource-related delays, if reasonable, do not breach Article 5 protections.
Drawing on precedent, including the case James v United Kingdom, the court rejected the expectation that necessary facilities must be made available immediately upon release decisions. It concluded the delay periods—118 days for Stanton and 69 days for Bowen—were not excessive or arbitrary.
Ultimately, the ECHR found no violation of Article 5, paragraph 1, affirming that the applicants’ continued detention between Parole Board decisions and eventual release was lawful and justified under both domestic and international human rights law.