Smith v The Parole Board [2003] EWCA Civ 1014 (30 June 2003)

Smith v The Parole Board [2003] EWCA Civ 1014 (30 June 2003)

The Court of Appeal held that the discretion to grant permission to argue additional grounds in judicial review is not limited to situations of significant change or new evidence; judges may permit argument on additional grounds if there is good reason, especially where grounds are closely interrelated. The appeal was allowed to enable the claimant to argue both Article 5 and Article 6 ECHR grounds.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 1014
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Trevor Smith; Respondent/defendant: The Parole Board
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Appeal From High Court, Permission to Apply for Judicial Review
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review Procedure, Parole Board Decisions, Article 5 and 6 ECHR, Oral Hearings, Discretion in Permission Applications
Administrative Law Human Rights Law Criminal Law Judicial Review Procedure Parole Board Decisions Article 5 and 6 ECHR Oral Hearings Discretion in Permission Applications

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trevor Smith

Appellant/claimant

The Parole Board

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Appeal From High Court, Permission to Apply for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a claimant can argue grounds for judicial review for which permission was previously refused after a contested oral hearing
  2. 2 Whether Article 5 and Article 6 ECHR require an oral hearing before the Parole Board
  3. 3 Scope of judicial discretion to grant permission for additional grounds

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the discretion to grant permission to argue additional grounds in judicial review is not limited to situations of significant change or new evidence; judges may permit argument on additional grounds if there is good reason, especially where grounds are closely interrelated. The appeal was allowed to enable the claimant to argue both Article 5 and Article 6 ECHR grounds.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Permission to apply for judicial review granted without restriction
  • Appeal retained by Court of Appeal for substantive hearing