Chiswick, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice & Anor [2024] EWHC 1223 (Admin) (22 May 2024)

Chiswick, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice & Anor [2024] EWHC 1223 (Admin) (22 May 2024)

The Parole Board's decision was rendered unlawful because the Secretary of State's unlawful rule and guidance (as identified in Bailey) operatively prohibited professional witnesses from providing their views on suitability for release, which the Panel had specifically directed. This amounted to a serious and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 1223 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Michael Chiswick; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Justice; Second Defendant: Parole Board for England & Wales
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim for judicial review succeeds in part; declaration and quashing order granted; claim for damages refused.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Article 5(4) ECHR, Separation of Powers, Parole Board Decision Making, Unlawful Guidance, Remedies in Public Law
Public Law Human Rights Law Prison Law Judicial Review Procedural Fairness Article 5(4) ECHR Separation of Powers Parole Board Decision Making +2 more

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Michael Chiswick

Claimant

Secretary of State for Justice

First Defendant

Parole Board for England & Wales

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Parole Board's decision on 13 March 2023 was rendered unlawful by the Secretary of State's unlawful prohibition on professional witnesses giving views on suitability for release, as identified in Bailey;
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings were procedurally unfair at common law and/or in breach of Article 5(4) ECHR;
  3. 3 Whether the decision should be quashed and/or a declaration granted;

Ratio Decidendi

The Parole Board's decision was rendered unlawful because the Secretary of State's unlawful rule and guidance (as identified in Bailey) operatively prohibited professional witnesses from providing their views on suitability for release, which the Panel had specifically directed. This amounted to a serious and unwarranted interference with the Parole Board's judicial functions, breached common law and Article 5(4) ECHR standards, and deprived the Panel of valuable evidence, making the process procedurally unfair and the outcome potentially different. The decision must be quashed and a declaration granted.

Court Disposition

Claim for judicial review succeeds in part; declaration and quashing order granted; claim for damages refused.

Orders

  • Declaration that the Parole Board's decision of 13 March 2023 was unlawful for the reasons set out in the judgment.
  • Quashing of the Parole Board's decision of 13 March 2023.