Morales, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board & Ors

Morales, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board & Ors

The claimant’s Article 5(4) ECHR rights were infringed by the Secretary of State’s delay in referring his case to the Parole Board and by the Board’s delay in progressing the review, but not by the Probation Service’s handling of the DVD or by the Board’s lack of direct powers to compel disclosure or witnesses. The Parole Board satisfies the requirements of a ‘court’ under Article 5(4) ECHR despite lacking direct enforcement powers, as adequate alternative mechanisms exist.

Parties
Claimant: Jan David Morales; First Defendant: The Parole Board; Second Defendant: The Secretary of State for Justice; Third Defendant: Staffordshire Probation Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Partial success for claimant; Article 5(4) breach found in respect of specific periods of delay by Secretary of State and Parole Board; all other claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Article 5(4) ECHR, Parole Board Powers, Judicial Review of Detention, Disclosure of Evidence, Procedural Fairness
Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Criminal Law Article 5(4) ECHR Parole Board Powers Judicial Review of Detention Disclosure of Evidence Procedural Fairness

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 3 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jan David Morales

Claimant

The Parole Board

First Defendant

The Secretary of State for Justice

Second Defendant

Staffordshire Probation Service

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether delay in reviewing the claimant’s detention after recall breached Article 5(4) ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the Parole Board’s lack of power to compel disclosure or witnesses undermined its independence under Article 5(4) ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant’s Article 5(4) ECHR rights were infringed by the Secretary of State’s delay in referring his case to the Parole Board and by the Board’s delay in progressing the review, but not by the Probation Service’s handling of the DVD or by the Board’s lack of direct powers to compel disclosure or witnesses. The Parole Board satisfies the requirements of a ‘court’ under Article 5(4) ECHR despite lacking direct enforcement powers, as adequate alternative mechanisms exist.

Court Disposition

Partial success for claimant; Article 5(4) breach found in respect of specific periods of delay by Secretary of State and Parole Board; all other claims dismissed.

Orders

  • Declaration that Article 5(4) ECHR was breached by the Secretary of State from 2 March 2007 to 10 April 2007 and by the Parole Board from 24 April 2007 to 10 May 2007 and from 12 May to 2 July 2007.
  • Remedies for the claimant to be considered at a further hearing.