Tabbakh, R (On the Application Of) v The Staffordshire and West Midlands Probation Trust & Anor

Tabbakh, R (On the Application Of) v The Staffordshire and West Midlands Probation Trust & Anor

The claimant's Article 8 procedural rights were satisfied because his concerns were communicated to and considered by the MAPPA panel through his offender manager, and the process allowed for ongoing review and variation of licence conditions. The policy did not create a very high risk or inevitability of unlawful decision-making, and thus was not unlawful. The claim fails.

Parties
Claimant: Hassan Tabbakh; First Defendant: Staffordshire and West Midlands Probation Trust; Second Defendant: Secretary of State for Justice; Interested Party: London Probation Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Article 8 ECHR, Procedural Fairness, Licence Conditions, MAPPA, Judicial Review, Probation Policy
Public Law Human Rights Law Criminal Law Article 8 ECHR Procedural Fairness Licence Conditions MAPPA Judicial Review +1 more

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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hassan Tabbakh

Claimant

Staffordshire and West Midlands Probation Trust

First Defendant

Secretary of State for Justice

Second Defendant

London Probation Trust

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the process for imposing additional licence conditions on the claimant breached Article 8 ECHR procedural guarantees
  2. 2 Whether the relevant policy creates an unacceptable risk of breach of Article 8 procedural rights

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's Article 8 procedural rights were satisfied because his concerns were communicated to and considered by the MAPPA panel through his offender manager, and the process allowed for ongoing review and variation of licence conditions. The policy did not create a very high risk or inevitability of unlawful decision-making, and thus was not unlawful. The claim fails.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed