Hickman, R (On the Application Of) v The Parole Board for England and Wales [2024] EWHC 3209 (Admin) (20 December 2024)

Hickman, R (On the Application Of) v The Parole Board for England and Wales [2024] EWHC 3209 (Admin) (20 December 2024)

The claim was dismissed as academic because the Parole Board had already directed the claimant's release, and there was no sufficient public interest to justify hearing the remaining grounds. The challenge to Rule 17 and the use of CMPs was refused permission as it would have no practical effect for the claimant and CMPs are rarely used. The Board's case management decisions were fact-specific and overtaken by subsequent events, rendering the claims academic.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 3209 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Lee Hickman; First Defendant: The Parole Board for England and Wales; First Interested Party: The National Probation Service; Second Interested Party/second Defendant: The Secretary of State for Justice; Third Interested Party: The Chief Constable of Merseyside Police
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Substantive Hearing and Permission Decision
Outcome
Claim dismissed; permission refused on Ground 6.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Closed Material Procedure, Parole Board, Procedural Fairness, Ultra Vires, Natural Justice
Administrative Law Criminal Law Prison Law Judicial Review Closed Material Procedure Parole Board Procedural Fairness Ultra Vires +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Hickman

Claimant

The Parole Board for England and Wales

First Defendant

The National Probation Service

First Interested Party

The Secretary of State for Justice

Second Interested Party/second Defendant

The Chief Constable of Merseyside Police

Third Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Substantive Hearing and Permission Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Parole Board's case management decisions regarding closed material and witness attendance were procedurally unfair or irrational
  2. 2 Whether Rule 17 of the Parole Board Rules 2019 is ultra vires or unconstitutional
  3. 3 Whether the use of a Closed Material Procedure (CMP) in parole proceedings is lawful

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was dismissed as academic because the Parole Board had already directed the claimant's release, and there was no sufficient public interest to justify hearing the remaining grounds. The challenge to Rule 17 and the use of CMPs was refused permission as it would have no practical effect for the claimant and CMPs are rarely used. The Board's case management decisions were fact-specific and overtaken by subsequent events, rendering the claims academic.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; permission refused on Ground 6.

Orders

  • Grounds 1, 2 and 4 dismissed as academic.
  • Permission refused on Ground 6.