Michael Chiswick, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice & Anor

Michael Chiswick, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice & Anor

The Parole Board's decision was rendered unlawful because the Justice Secretary's unlawful prohibition prevented professional witnesses from providing their views on suitability for release, which the Panel had specifically directed. This was a serious and unwarranted interference with the Board's judicial functions, breached Article 5(4) ECHR and common law standards, and materially affected the decision-making process. The outcome might have been different had the evidence been available.

Parties
Claimant: Michael Chiswick; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Justice; Second Defendant: Parole Board for England & Wales
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Claim for judicial review allowed; decision quashed; damages refused; costs awarded to claimant.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Parole Board Proceedings, Article 5(4) ECHR, Separation of Powers
Public Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Procedural Fairness Parole Board Proceedings Article 5(4) ECHR Separation of Powers

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 14 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 Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Parole Board's decision was vitiated by procedural unfairness and/or breach of Article 5(4) ECHR due to the unlawful prohibition on professional witnesses giving their views on suitability for release
  2. 2 Whether the decision should be quashed and a declaration granted
  3. 3 Whether just satisfaction damages are appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The Parole Board's decision was rendered unlawful because the Justice Secretary's unlawful prohibition prevented professional witnesses from providing their views on suitability for release, which the Panel had specifically directed. This was a serious and unwarranted interference with the Board's judicial functions, breached Article 5(4) ECHR and common law standards, and materially affected the decision-making process. The outcome might have been different had the evidence been available.

Court Disposition

Claim for judicial review allowed; decision quashed; damages refused; costs awarded to claimant.

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.