Regina v Parole Board and Another ex parte Wilson: CA 6 May 1992

It was natural justice to allow a discretionary lifer to see the reports which had been prepared for consideration on his application for release on licence. W had been sentenced to life imprisonment for buggery, and was a discretionary life prisoner. The report iindicated that he might still be a risk if released on licence.
Held: He could not make use of the right to make representations if he was not told of the allegations against him. Natural justice required that he be given the information.
Taylor LJ
Gazette 06-May-1992, [1992] QB 740, [1992] 2 WLR 707
Cited by:

  • Cited – Regina v Chief Constable of North Wales Police and Others Ex Parte Thorpe and Another; Regina v Chief Constable for North Wales Police Area and others ex parte AB and CB CA 18-Mar-1998
    Public Identification of Pedophiles by Police
    AB and CB had been released from prison after serving sentences for sexual assaults on children. They were thought still to be dangerous. They moved about the country to escape identification, and came to be staying on a campsite. The police sought . .
    Times 23-Mar-98, Gazette 29-Apr-98, [1998] EWCA Civ 486, [1999] QB 396, [1998] 2 FLR 571, [1998] 3 All ER 310, [1998] Fam Law 529, [1998] 3 FCR 371, [1998] 3 WLR 57
  • Adopted – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody and Others HL 25-Jun-1993
    A mandatory lifer is to be permitted to suggest the period of actual sentence to be served. The Home Secretary must give reasons for refusing a lifer’s release. What fairness requires in any particular case is ‘essentially an intuitive judgment’, . .
    Independent 25-Jun-93, Times 29-Jun-93, [1993] 3 All ER 92, [1994] 1 AC 531, [1993] UKHL 8, [1993] 3 WLR 154
  • 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: . .
    [2005] UKHL 45, [2005] 2 AC 738, [2005] HRLR 38, [2005] UKHRR 939, [2006] 1 All ER 39, [2005] RPC 10, [2005] 3 WLR 152
  • Approved – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department Ex Parte Hickey and Others, Same Ex Parte Bamber; Same Ex Parte Malone (No 2) QBD 29-Nov-1994
    The Home Secretary is obliged to disclose new evidence to a defendant before rejecting his application for a reference to Court of Appeal. The Home Secretary’s powers to refer a case back to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) was an integral . .
    Independent 29-Nov-94, Times 02-Dec-94, [1995] 1 WLR 734
  • 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 . .
    [2008] EWCA Civ 29, Times 05-Feb-08, [2008] 1 WLR 1950, [2008] 3 All ER 289, [2008] UKHRR 500
  • Cited – 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 . .
    [2013] UKSC 61, [2013] 3 WLR 1020, [2014] HRLR 1, [2013] WLR(D) 374, [2014] 1 All ER 369, UKSC 2011/0147

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 December 2020; Ref: scu.87525