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 children.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The Board members were free not to consider all papers put before it. It is for the Boad to establish appropriate procedures to give effect to the Ruling. It is a constant of judicial activity that a judge will see materials and assess and apply its value. The judge at trial will have seen this information, without an application to be recused. A parole board was similarly able, and the members here had indicated disquiet and had sought assistance. The task members have to perform, the assessment of risk to the public, is a different one from the task of deciding upon the correct sentence. A prisoner has the right to challenge particular documents by protest or judicial review.
Pill, Toulson, Tomlinson LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 182, [2013] 1 WLR 2064, [2013] WLR(D) 107, [2013] 3 All ER 636
Bailii,
Criminal Justice Act 2003 239, Parole Board Rules 2011
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Girling v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another CA 21-Dec-2006
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 . .
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 . .
Appeal from – McGetrick, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parole Board and Another Admn 4-Apr-2012
Parole Board Must Consider All Material Before It
The court was asked whether it was lawful for the Parole Board, when deciding whether to release a prisoner on licence, to take into account material provided by the Secretary of State containing factual allegations about the prisoner’s pre-trial . .
Cited – Regina v Parole Board ex parte Harris Admn 15-Sep-1997
Scott Baker J stated that: ‘it is incumbent upon the Parole Board to have before it the widest possible information.’ The range of information which may be relevant to that assessment is a broad one.
In stressing the need for the applicant to . .
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 – Roberts v Parole Board CA 28-Jul-2004
The discretionary life-prisoner faced a parole board. The Secretary of State wished to present evidence, but wanted the witness to be protected. The Parole Board appointed special counsel to hear the evidence on behalf of the prisoner on terms that . .
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: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Prisons
Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.471737
