Site icon swarb.co.uk

Gardner, Regina (on the Application of) v Parole Board: CA 5 Sep 2006

The prisoner challenged his exclusion from a parole board hearing whilst evidence was taken. He was serving a long sentence for a violent attack, and had re-offended only shortly after his release. His ex-wife had been unwilling to confront him, and he had been excluded whilst she gave evidence.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘The short procedural code set out in Rule 19 contains the essential features of fairness but it is obviously not designed to deal expressly with every eventuality and so is couched in flexible rather than absolute language. It is similar to the procedural rules for other tribunals which are designed to confer the widest possible procedural discretion to enable the tribunal to discharge its duties.’
The Rules do give a panel power to exclude a prisoner whilst a witness is giving evidence in circumstances such as those which arose in this case. The applicant had known what evidence was to be given, it was given in the presence of his own counsel who had opportunity to test her evidence in cross examination.

Judges:

Mummery LJ, Tuckey LJ, Wilson LJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1222, Times 29-Sep-2006

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prison Rules 2004 19

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRoberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .
Appeal fromGardner, Regina (on the Application Of) v the Parole Board Admn 21-Dec-2005
The court considered whether a parole review board can exclude the prisoner from part of a hearing and if so on what grounds.
Held: The parole board had the required power. Both Rule 19 (2) and 19 (3) gave the panel the power which they . .
CitedD (A Minor), Regina (on the Application of) v Camberwell Green Youth Court HL 27-Jan-2005
The defendant challenged the obligatory requirement that evidence given by a person under 17 in sex or violent offence cases must normally be given by video link.
Held: The purpose of the section was to improve the quality of the evidence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Natural Justice

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.244809

Exit mobile version