Brooke & Anor, R (on the application of) v Parole Board & Anor [2007] EWHC 2036 (Admin) (07 September 2007)

Brooke & Anor, R (on the application of) v Parole Board & Anor [2007] EWHC 2036 (Admin) (07 September 2007)

The Parole Board, as currently constituted and sponsored, fails to provide sufficient guarantees of independence and impartiality required by Article 5(4) ECHR and the common law. The combination of short tenure with an unfettered power of removal by the Secretary of State, the close sponsorship relationship, and the Secretary of State's multiple roles as funder, rule-maker, and party to proceedings, create an objective appearance of lack of independence. While individual features such as ministerial appointment or funding are not in themselves fatal, their cumulative effect, especially the lack of security of tenure and the sponsorship arrangements, is incompatible with the required...

Citation
[2007] EWHC 2036 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Michael Brooke; Claimant: Gagik Ter-Ogannisyan; Claimant: David O'Connell; Claimant: Michael Murphy; First Defendant: The Parole Board; Second Defendant: The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 September 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed. Declaration granted that the Parole Board as constituted does not meet the requirements of independence under Article 5(4) ECHR and the common law.
Legal Topics
Judicial Independence, Procedural Fairness, Parole Board Structure, Article 5(4) ECHR, Common Law Bias, Security of Tenure, Ministerial Appointment, Separation of Powers
Public Law Human Rights Law Criminal Law Judicial Independence Procedural Fairness Parole Board Structure Article 5(4) ECHR Common Law Bias +3 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 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Brooke

Claimant

Gagik Ter-Ogannisyan

Claimant

David O'Connell

Claimant

Michael Murphy

Claimant

The Parole Board

First Defendant

The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Parole Board possesses sufficient independence from the Executive to satisfy the requirements of Article 5(4) ECHR and the common law of procedural fairness
  2. 2 Whether the structure, appointment, tenure, funding, and sponsorship arrangements of the Parole Board create an appearance or risk of lack of independence or bias

Ratio Decidendi

The Parole Board, as currently constituted and sponsored, fails to provide sufficient guarantees of independence and impartiality required by Article 5(4) ECHR and the common law. The combination of short tenure with an unfettered power of removal by the Secretary of State, the close sponsorship relationship, and the Secretary of State's multiple roles as funder, rule-maker, and party to proceedings, create an objective appearance of lack of independence. While individual features such as ministerial appointment or funding are not in themselves fatal, their cumulative effect, especially the lack of security of tenure and the sponsorship arrangements, is incompatible with the required...

Court Disposition

Claim allowed. Declaration granted that the Parole Board as constituted does not meet the requirements of independence under Article 5(4) ECHR and the common law.

Orders

  • Declaration that the Parole Board lacks sufficient independence under Article 5(4) ECHR and the common law.
  • No order for immediate structural change, but the matter is drawn to the attention of the responsible authorities for reform.