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 appellant’s case were only minimally in contention, that the focus of the appellant’s letter had been on matters which were peripheral to the decision made, and that the bulk of the letter indicated a desire to ask questions about matters of fact which were not in dispute and did not have any relevance to the risk to the public on re-release.
Langstaff J
[2010] EWHC 580 (Admin)
Bailii
Citing:
CitedWaite 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 . .
CitedRegina 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: . .

Cited by:
At first instanceOsborn 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 . .
Appeal fromOsborn and Another v The Parole Board CA 15-Dec-2010
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 February 2021; Ref: scu.403379