The claimant had challenged the findings of the Parole Board in his case, saying that the Board was not an independent tribunal as required under human rights law, since it was subject to direction from the Home Secretary.
Held: The Home Secretary’s appeal succeeded. The meaning of the word ‘directions’ depended on its context. The power in the Act was to be construed as for the giving of general directions only, and could not limit or extend the considerations which the Board had to allow for. So construed, there was no infringement.
Sir Anthony Clarke MR said: ‘Like all English words used in a statute (or indeed elsewhere), the meaning of the word ‘directions’ depends upon its context. The conclusion reached by the judge would we think be correct if the power to give directions included a power to direct the Board how it was to decide a particular case or class of case, because that would be to impugn the independence of the Board and to interfere with its functions as a court. However, if the power to give directions is construed as including, and being limited to, a power to give general directions to the Board to assist it to exercise its powers within the law, we can see no objection in principle to such a power being conferred on the Secretary of State.’
Judges:
Sir Anthony Clarke, Master of the Rolls, Sir Igor Judge, President and Lord Justice Carnmwath
Citations:
[2006] EWCA Civ 1779, Times 19-Jan-2007, [2007] 2 WLR 782, [2007] 2 All ER 688, [2007] QB 783
Links:
Statutes:
Criminal Justice Act 1991 32(6)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal From – Girling v Parole Board and Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 8-Apr-2005
Once the punitive or tariff term of imprisonment on a convicted murderer, is completed, risk to life and limb provides the sole ground for continued detention. The Parole Board, being subject to directions from the Home Secretary, was not an . .
Cited by:
Cited – Brooke and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v The Parole Board and Another CA 1-Feb-2008
The claimant prisoner complained that the Parole Board was insufficiently independent of government to provide a fair hearing. The court at first instance had found that the relationship between the Parole Board and the sponsoring Department put the . .
Cited – McGetrick, Regina (on The Application of) v Parole Board and Another CA 14-Mar-2013
The claimant prisoner appealed against refusal of review of the use of allegations and evidence of offences not tried against him when deciding as to his release on licence. The material would suggest that he might pose a continuing risk to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Prisons
Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.247498
