Lee Hickman, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board for England and Wales

Lee Hickman, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board for England and Wales

The claim was dismissed as academic because the claimant's release had been directed and no practical relief could be granted. There was no sufficient public interest to justify hearing the claim, and the Board's case management decisions were fact-specific and overtaken by subsequent events. Permission was refused on the challenge to Rule 17 as it would have no practical implication for the claimant and CMPs are rarely used.

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 Procedure, Ultra Vires, Natural Justice
Public Law Criminal Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Closed Material Procedure Parole Board Procedure Ultra Vires Natural Justice

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 procedure (CMP) were lawful and procedurally fair
  2. 2 Whether Rule 17 of the Parole Board Rules 2019 is ultra vires or unconstitutional
  3. 3 Whether the claim was academic following the claimant's release direction

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was dismissed as academic because the claimant's release had been directed and no practical relief could be granted. There was no sufficient public interest to justify hearing the claim, and the Board's case management decisions were fact-specific and overtaken by subsequent events. Permission was refused on the challenge to Rule 17 as it would have no practical implication for the claimant and CMPs are rarely used.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; permission refused on Ground 6

Orders

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