Notable cases in recent years include:
EWCA Civ 1074 – on the scope of the ancillary duty under article 5 of the ECHR.
(CO/3672/2016) – Justice Secretary conceded that the use of disciplinary measures and consequent use of segregation against a prisoner with autism was unlawful for failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability.
(CO/1998/2016) – successful challenge to a sentence calculation, which had wrongly taken into account a sentence which had not been validly included in an EAW.
 EWHC 273 (Admin) – the court found that those detained under immigration powers who lack mental capacity face a systemic risk of unfairness, as no provision is made for those without legal representation to be provided with assistance in making representations in response to decisions to detain, and other decisions affecting conditions of detention.
 EWCA Civ 45 represented Mind intervening in this case in which the Court of Appeal considered the proper interpretation of the Home Office’s policy on the detention of those with mental illness.
 EWHC 979 (Admin) - the High Court found that the Home Secretary acted unlawfully in making changes to the Home Office policy for detaining those with mental illness in immigration detention. In a judicial review brought by a detainee with paranoid schizophrenia, Mr Justice Singh QC ruled that the changes were unlawful as they failed to have due regard to equality duties owed by the Home Secretary under discrimination legislation.
 EWCA Civ 1335 on the charging requirements in the prison disciplinary system.
 EWCA 1538 Civ – on the application of article 8 of the ECHR to regimes in segregation units.
 EWHC 3389 (QB) – a claim arising from a failure by a prison to allow a segregated prisoner a full hour in the open air each day, in breach of policy.
 EWHC 2265 (Admin) – which examined the lawfulness of detention under the Immigration Act of those suffering from mental illness.
 EWHC 808 (Admin) – a challenge to the lawfulness of long term detention of a Somali national under the Immigration Act following completion of a criminal sentence.
 EWCA Civ 867 – which held that Article 5 of the ECHR does not apply to the initial release of extended sentence prisoners.
 EWHC 109 (Admin) – which confirmed that prison disciplinary charges laid against life sentenced prisoners can engage Article 6 of the ECHR by reference to seriousness alone, without consideration of the potential penalty.
 EWHC 2590 (Admin) – on the rights of category A prisoners to an oral hearing to consider their security status.
 EWHC 1788 (Admin), and HK (Turkey) v SSHD  EWCA Civ 1357 – which considered the lawfulness of decisions to detain asylum seekers with a history of torture in order to fast-track their asylum claims.
 EWCA Civ 29 – which found that the Parole Board’s relationship with the Ministry of Justice breached the requirement for it to be independent.
 EWHC 2591 (Admin) – which held that Article 5 of the ECHR applied to the release of extended sentence prisoners.
 EWHC 2605 (Admin) - on the lawfulness of the Secretary of State rejecting Parole Board recommendations that life sentence prisoners be transferred to an open prison.
 EWHC 2007 (Admin) – on the Parole Board’s duty to obtain further evidence on risk in light of its findings of fact.
 EWHC 980 (Admin) – which strongly criticised the Home Office’s failure to ensure that immigration detainees were medically examined on arrival at detention centres to ensure that torture victims were not wrongfully detained.
 EWHC 228 (Admin) – on the lawfulness of the re-detention of immigration detainees following a grant of bail by an immigration judge.
 EWHC (Admin) - which was a successful challenge to the legality of lengthy detention under the Immigration Act following the completion of a criminal sentence
 UKHL 1, where the House of Lords confirmed that the recall of prisoners serving fixed-term sentences engaged Article 5(4) ECHR and would normally require an oral hearing before the Parole Board.
 QB 1288 in which the Court of Appeal clarified the test for release of those serving extended sentences recalled to custody and confirmed that there was a presumption of liberty in such cases, and also considered the extent to which hearsay evidence is admissible before the Board.