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 exercised. The Board had a responsibility to reconcile as far as it could its obligations to the prisoner with its obligations to protect society including third parties such as witnesses and that in order to discharge these obligations. Rule 19(2) must be construed purposively to achieve a balance between these obligations.
Judges:
Munby J
Citations:
[2005] EWHC 2981 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
Citing:
Cited – Roberts 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: . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Prisons
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241529