Gray v Secretary of State for Justice & Anor [2010] EWHC 2 (Admin) (11 January 2010)

Gray v Secretary of State for Justice & Anor [2010] EWHC 2 (Admin) (11 January 2010)

The Parole Board failed to provide a speedy hearing as required by Article 5(4) ECHR due to avoidable administrative delay, constituting a breach. However, the 18-month interval until the next review was reasonable given the work required for risk reduction and was not a breach. The Secretary of State's directions and the Board's approach to transfer to open conditions were not unlawful or irrational on the facts of this case, and no actionable failure to provide further guidance was established.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 2 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Ian Gray; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Justice; Second Defendant: Parole Board
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 January 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Rolled Up Application for Permission and Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Partially allowed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Parole Board Procedures, Article 5(4) ECHR, Detention for Public Protection, Delay in Parole Hearings, Secretary of State's Directions, Transfer to Open Conditions
Public Law Human Rights Law Prison Law Judicial Review Parole Board Procedures Article 5(4) ECHR Detention for Public Protection Delay in Parole Hearings +2 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 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian Gray

Claimant

Secretary of State for Justice

First Defendant

Parole Board

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Rolled Up Application for Permission and Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the delay in convening the claimant's Parole Board hearing violated Article 5(4) ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the interval until the next review (August 2010) was unlawful under Article 5(4) ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the Secretary of State's directions to the Parole Board were unlawful and irrational

Ratio Decidendi

The Parole Board failed to provide a speedy hearing as required by Article 5(4) ECHR due to avoidable administrative delay, constituting a breach. However, the 18-month interval until the next review was reasonable given the work required for risk reduction and was not a breach. The Secretary of State's directions and the Board's approach to transfer to open conditions were not unlawful or irrational on the facts of this case, and no actionable failure to provide further guidance was established.

Court Disposition

Partially allowed

Orders

  • Declaration that the Parole Board's failure to provide a hearing until 13 February 2009 was a breach of Article 5(4) ECHR
  • No order for damages or further relief