Regina (Smith) v Parole Board (No 2): CA 31 Jul 2003

The applicant having been released on licence had his licence revoked. The decision had been made at a hearing which considered evidence on paper only, which he said was unfair.
Held: The case law had maintained a proper distinction between the determination of a criminal charge and otherwise. The first required an oral hearing for fairness, but otherwise not. A recall operated within a situation where the licensee was already subject to the sentence and conditions of his licence.The Parole Board was assessing prospective risk and probabilities, and it was not an area susceptible of proof beyond reasonable doubt. There had been no request for an oral hearing in this case, and the claimant was entitled to submit written representations. There was no unfairness.
Kennedy, Brooke LJJ, Holman J
Times 02-Sep-2003, Gazette 11-Sep-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 1269, [2003] 1 WLR 2548, Gazette 02-Oct-2003, [2004] 1 WLR 421
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 5.1 6.1, Criminal Justice Act 1991 39(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Manchester Crown Court, ex parte McCann and others QBD 22-Nov-2000
An application for an anti-social behaviour order against an individual was a civil, not a criminal proceeding. The standard of evidence required was on the balance of probability; the civil standard. Such proceedings were not subject to the . .
Appealed toRegina 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:
CitedRegina (Sim) v Parole Board CA 18-Dec-2003
The prisoner had been sentenced to an extended term of five years imprisonment for indecent assault. He had been released, and then recalled for alleged breaches of his licence. The respondent appealed findings that such a recall was subject to . .
CitedClift, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 29-Apr-2004
The claimant was a prisoner serving a determinate term exceeding 15 years. He complained that the respondent’s remaining juridsiction as to his release on licence infringed his human rights.
Held: This was the sole remaining element of the . .
CitedSecretary of State for the Home Department v Hindawi and Headley CA 13-Oct-2004
The applicant was a foreign national serving a long-term prison sentence. He complained that UK nationals would have had their case referred to the parole board before his.
Held: The right to be referred to the parole board was a statutory . .
Appeal fromRegina 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: . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 February 2021; Ref: scu.186097