The three claimants complained that the respondent had made decisions adverse to them as to their release to or recall from parole.
Held: Review was refused. While there was ‘some force in the submission that, contrary to the understanding of the judge, there were significant factual disputes on matters relevant to the decision’. He considered however that the judge ‘was right to consider that the board’s decision on release did not ultimately depend on resolution of these issues’. The lack of information about the appellant’s current mental health status and the recommendation that a full psychiatric assessment should be carried out, combined with the very high risk of harm should he re-offend, provided ample reason for not allowing release
Judges:
Sedley, Carnwath, Moses LJJ
Citations:
[2010] EWCA Civ 1409, [2011] UKHRR 35
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Waite v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-Dec-2002
The claimant had been sentenced to be detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure when a youth. After release on licence, the Parole Board met and revoked that licence without an oral hearing, and in contravention of the rules. He did not dispute the facts . .
Cited – Regina v Parole Board ex parte Smith, Regina v Parole Board ex parte West (Conjoined Appeals) HL 27-Jan-2005
Each defendant challenged the way he had been treated on revocation of his parole licence, saying he should have been given the opportunity to make oral representations.
Held: The prisoners’ appeals were allowed.
Lord Bingham stated: . .
Appeal from – Osborn v The Parole Board Admn 19-Mar-2010
The claimants complained that decisions had been made by the respondents without them having been first given a right to an oral hearing. They now sought permission to bring judicial review.
Held: Permission was refused. The facts in the . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Osborn v The Parole Board SC 9-Oct-2013
Three prisoners raised questions as to the circumstances in which the Parole Board is required to hold an oral hearing before making an adverse decision. One of the appeals (Osborn) concerned a determinate sentence prisoner who was released on . .
Applied – Reilly, Re Judicial Review CANI 6-Apr-2011
The applicant had been granted judicial review of a decision by the parole board not to grant his release on parole but without having afforded him an oral hearing. The Board now appealed.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The court followed the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Prisons, Human Rights
Updated: 28 August 2022; Ref: scu.427177