down as chairman of Blackpool F.C. In March 1999 his victim brought a civil action against Oyston, claiming £500,000 for psychological damage, which he settled out of court. In April 1999 a parole panel rejected his application for parole because he had not completed the Sex Offenders Treatment Programme from which he had been excluded by his refusal to admit his own guilt. Release from prison After serving three years and six months in prison, Oyston was released on parole on 7 December 1999. After a judicial review of the Parole Board's refusal, Mr. Justice Hooper found on 14 October 1999 that the board had acted unlawfully by denying an early release because Oyston would not admit the crime. The rule had been applied as a "catch 22". Under normal parole terms, Oyston would have been due for release in May 1999. Still maintaining his innocence, he was released from Wealstun Prison in West Yorkshire on 7 December. He was enrolled on the sex offenders' register as part of the conditions of release. All he said in public on his release was, "I am pleased to be going home but there will be no celebrations until my name is cleared." He also repeated allegations of a conspiracy, claiming police had been told by a businessman in the West Midlands three months before his arrest that he had paid £5,000 to a woman to "set Owen up". He also unsuccessfully appealed to the European court for his conviction to be overturned. In the 12 months after his release, he was not seen in public and became a recluse in his home at Claughton Hall, Claughton, Lancaster. On 29 June 2001 Oyston spoke publicly for the first time since his release. He vowed to fight to clear his name, saying "The fact that the media haven't caught up with me until now doesn't mean I have been hiding. I’m still fighting to clear my name. Shortly a judgement will be made in Europe about my case. I won't stop fighting to clear my name. I will eventually." The appeal was rejected by the European Court of Human Rights on 22 January 2002 as "manifestly ill-founded". They ruled that it was a fair hearing and that fresh evidence adduced by Oyston in the rape case which was refused by the Court of Appeal was inadmissible. They stated that "there was no reason to