R (Cawser) v Secretary of State for the Home Department is a landmark Court of Appeal case from 5 November 2003, addressing the provision of sex offender treatment programmes in UK prisons and their impact on parole eligibility for life sentence prisoners. The appellant, Cawser, a 51-year-old man with prior convictions for sexual offences, challenged delays in accessing the Extended Sex Offender Treatment Programme (ESOTP), arguing that such delays infringed his rights under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and domestic public law.
Cawser's criminal history began in December 1978 when he was convicted of the rape of a 13-year-old girl. He was initially sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment, which was reduced to 9 years on appeal. This conviction came to light in 1998 when his partner discovered it during their separation. Following an argument about the separation, Cawser drove her to the countryside and raped her in his car while under the influence of alcohol. On 17 February 1999, he was found guilty of this rape and sentenced to life imprisonment under the automatic life sentence provisions of section 2 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (now section 109 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000). The tariff—the minimum punitive period—was set at 2.5 years, expiring in August 2001, presuming a determinate sentence of five years for the offence.
- Key Timeline of Events:
- 1978: Conviction for rape of a 13-year-old girl; 9-year sentence.
- 1998: Partner learns of prior conviction; separation follows.
- Late 1998 or early 1999: Rape of former partner.
- 17 February 1999: Conviction and life sentence imposed.
- August 2001: Tariff expires.
- September 2001: First Parole Board review; release not directed due to outstanding work on alcohol use, victim empathy, and sexual offending.
- 29 November 2001: Deemed suitable for ESOTP by Prison Service psychologist.
- 15 April 2002: Solicitors inquire about course availability; informed of waits until 2003 or 2004.
- 11 December 2002: Second Parole Board review highlights need for ESOTP.
- 6 January 2003: Next review set for December 2004, potentially earlier upon ESOTP completion.
- August 2003: Finally placed on ESOTP at Shepton Mallet prison, after a 21-month wait from approval.
The case centred on the Prison Service's Sex Offender Treatment Programme (SOTP, introduced 1992) and ESOTP (1997), which are crucial for demonstrating risk reduction to the Parole Board under section 28 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. The Board must be satisfied that continued confinement is no longer necessary for public protection before directing release. As Lord Justice Simon Brown noted in the judgment: 'Only very exceptionally will a life sentence prisoner convicted of sex offences be able to secure his release without having successfully attended one or both of these courses.' Cawser's solicitors, Bhatt Murphy & Co, argued that resource shortages caused the delay, inevitably postponing his release and breaching Article 5 ECHR, which guarantees liberty and security and the right to a speedy review of detention.
Mr Watts, a senior officer in the Prison Service Life Unit, explained in his statement that ESOTP is a complex 68-session course for high-risk prisoners post-SOTP, requiring specialised staff. In the year to April 2003, only 12 courses ran across 10 prisons, increasing to 19 courses (152 places) in 11 prisons by 2004. Allocation prioritises risk, tariff expiry, and motivation, with lifers post-tariff favoured over those approaching it, though determinate sentence prisoners nearing release may take precedence. The respondent, represented by Rabinder Singh QC, contended that while programmes aid release demonstrations, they are not a strict precondition. However, Cawser's solicitor affirmed: 'It has been my experience that prisoners convicted of sexual offences who do not attend the relevant course find it almost impossible to satisfy the test of release on licence,' particularly for lifers with serious sexual offences.
The Court of Appeal, comprising Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Laws, and Lady Justice Arden, granted permission to appeal on 7 April 2003 by Buxton LJ, focusing on judicial scrutiny of resource allocation policies under Article 5. Though academic for Cawser by judgment time (as he had started ESOTP), the issues affected many awaiting courses. The judgment referenced prior authorities like R (Noorkoiv) v Home Secretary [2002] 1 WLR 3284, emphasising minimising post-tariff detention for non-dangerous prisoners. This case has been cited in subsequent rulings, such as R (James and Others) v Secretary of State for Justice (2007) and R (Kaiyam) v Secretary of State for Justice (2013), affirming duties to provide rehabilitative opportunities without infringing human rights.
Source: Neutral Citation [2003] EWCA Civ 1522, Court of Appeal (Civil Division), England & Wales. Full judgment available via vLex United Kingdom.