Gray v Secretary of State for Justice & Anor

Gray v Secretary of State for Justice & Anor

The Parole Board's failure to provide a hearing until 13 February 2009 constituted a breach of Article 5(4) ECHR due to avoidable administrative delay and lack of active case management. Other grounds failed as the intervals for review and directions were reasonable and lawful, and the absence of further guidance on transfer to open conditions did not amount to unlawfulness in this case.

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 / Judgment on Rolled Up Application for Permission and Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Permission to apply for judicial review granted; claim allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Parole Board Procedures, Detention for Public Protection, Article 5(4) ECHR, Delay in Parole Hearings
Public Law Human Rights Law Criminal Law Judicial Review Parole Board Procedures Detention for Public Protection Article 5(4) ECHR Delay in Parole Hearings

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian Gray

Claimant

Secretary of State for Justice

First Defendant

Parole Board

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The Parole Board's failure to provide a hearing until 13 February 2009 constituted a breach of Article 5(4) ECHR due to avoidable administrative delay and lack of active case management. Other grounds failed as the intervals for review and directions were reasonable and lawful, and the absence of further guidance on transfer to open conditions did not amount to unlawfulness in this case.

Court Disposition

Permission to apply for judicial review granted; claim allowed in part.

Orders

  • Declaration granted that the Parole Board violated the claimant's right to a speedy hearing under Article 5(4) ECHR by failing to hear his case until 13 February 2009.
  • All other grounds dismissed; no damages awarded.