The prisoner had been released on licence, but then recalled and re-arrested it being alleged that he was in breach of his conditions. His solicitors sought to represent him at the hearing of the parole board which considered whether to recommend his re-release. He complained that the refusal to allow representation infringed his right to a fair trial.
Held: The decision as to whether he should again be released on licence was not a determination of criminal charges so as to engage his human rights, and create a right to be represented. The decision related to public safety, and did not involve any punitive element. Unlike in Ezeh, no further change was being considered. The Board ‘plainly have the power under section 32 of the Act to adopt whatever procedures they think necessary’.
Simon Brown, Sedley, Hale LJJ
Times 21-Nov-2002, Gazette 23-Jan-2003, [2002] EWCA Civ 1641, [2003] 1 WLR 705
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 1991 39(5), European Convention on Human Rights Art 5
England and Wales
Citing:
Distinguished – Ezeh and Connors v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Jul-2002
The applicants were serving prisoners. They had been the subject of disciplinary proceedings in which they had been denied the right to representation. They claimed an infringement of their right to a fair trial.
Held: Both proceedings had . .
Appeal from – West, Regina (on the Application Of) v Parole Board Admn 26-Apr-2002
. .
Appealed to – 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: . .
Cited by:
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 . .
Appeal from – 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: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 October 2021; Ref: scu.178113
