Chater, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice & Anor [2010] EWHC 2257 (Admin) (02 August 2010)

Chater, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice & Anor [2010] EWHC 2257 (Admin) (02 August 2010)

Although the Parole Board's decision letter misstated the legal test, the Board in substance applied the correct approach by assessing whether the claimant's risk could be managed in the community and lawfully concluded it could not; thus, the decision to refuse release stands and the claim is dismissed.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 2257 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Chater; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Justice; Second Defendant: The Parole Board
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Parole, Recall to Prison, Article 5(4) ECHR, Extended Sentences, Risk Assessment, Costs
Public Law Criminal Law Human Rights Judicial Review Parole Recall to Prison Article 5(4) ECHR Extended Sentences +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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chater

Claimant

Secretary of State for Justice

First Defendant

The Parole Board

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Parole Board breached Article 5(4) ECHR by delay in holding an oral hearing
  2. 2 Whether the Parole Board applied the correct legal test in refusing release after recall
  3. 3 Whether the decision to refuse release should be quashed

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Parole Board's decision letter misstated the legal test, the Board in substance applied the correct approach by assessing whether the claimant's risk could be managed in the community and lawfully concluded it could not; thus, the decision to refuse release stands and the claim is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Costs order in favour of defendants from 12 February 2010, not to be enforced without leave due to claimant's public funding
  • Permission to appeal refused as not realistically arguable