Boswell v The Parole Board & Anor [2009] EWHC 2049 (Admin) (28 July 2009)

Boswell v The Parole Board & Anor [2009] EWHC 2049 (Admin) (28 July 2009)

Although there was a breach of Article 5(4) ECHR due to the delay in reviewing the claimant's detention after expiry of his tariff, the claimant is not entitled to a mandatory order, declaratory relief, or damages because he cannot demonstrate a real chance of release, and granting such relief would disrupt the Parole Board's case management and prejudice other prisoners.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 2049 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Brian Boswell; First Defendant: The Parole Board; Second Defendant: Secretary of State for Justice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Article 5(4) ECHR, Parole Board Hearings, Imprisonment for Public Protection (ipp), Judicial Review of Administrative Action, Damages for Breach of Human Rights
Public Law Human Rights Law Prison Law Article 5(4) ECHR Parole Board Hearings Imprisonment for Public Protection (ipp) Judicial Review of Administrative Action Damages for Breach of Human Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Boswell

Claimant

The Parole Board

First Defendant

Secretary of State for Justice

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the delay in listing the claimant's parole hearing breached Article 5(4) ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the defendants are liable for damages or declaratory relief for breach of Article 5(4) ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

Although there was a breach of Article 5(4) ECHR due to the delay in reviewing the claimant's detention after expiry of his tariff, the claimant is not entitled to a mandatory order, declaratory relief, or damages because he cannot demonstrate a real chance of release, and granting such relief would disrupt the Parole Board's case management and prejudice other prisoners.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed