Smith v The Parole Board

Smith v The Parole Board

The discretion to allow further grounds to be argued after permission has been refused is not limited to cases of new facts or law; judges may permit additional grounds where there is good reason, especially where the interests of justice require it. In this case, the Article 5 and Article 6 arguments are so closely related that both should be heard together.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Trevor Smith; Respondent/defendant: The Parole Board
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court (permission to Apply for Judicial Review)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review Procedure, Parole Board Decisions, Article 5 ECHR, Article 6 ECHR, Oral Hearings, Permission to Apply for Judicial Review
Administrative Law Criminal Law Human Rights Judicial Review Procedure Parole Board Decisions Article 5 ECHR Article 6 ECHR Oral Hearings +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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trevor Smith

Appellant/claimant

The Parole Board

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court (permission to Apply for Judicial Review)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a claimant refused permission on certain grounds at an oral hearing for judicial review can renew those grounds before the substantive hearing or on appeal
  2. 2 Whether the refusal of permission on Article 5 ECHR grounds was correct and whether new authorities justify reconsideration
  3. 3 What is the proper scope of judicial discretion to allow further grounds to be argued after permission has been refused

Ratio Decidendi

The discretion to allow further grounds to be argued after permission has been refused is not limited to cases of new facts or law; judges may permit additional grounds where there is good reason, especially where the interests of justice require it. In this case, the Article 5 and Article 6 arguments are so closely related that both should be heard together.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

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