Henry, R (on the application of) v Parole Board & Anor

Henry, R (on the application of) v Parole Board & Anor

The application is dismissed because the Parole Board's decision was not a borderline case and was justified on the facts; the Board did not err in law in its approach to the burden of proof, and section 28(6)(b) is not incompatible with Article 5 ECHR on these facts.

Parties
Claimant: Sean Henry; First Defendant: The Parole Board; Second Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Parole, Burden of Proof, Article 5 ECHR, Life Sentences, Judicial Review
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Parole Burden of Proof Article 5 ECHR Life Sentences Judicial Review

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sean Henry

Claimant

The Parole Board

First Defendant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Parole Board erred in law by placing the burden of proof on the claimant to demonstrate he was safe to release rather than on the Secretary of State to justify continued detention
  2. 2 Whether section 28(6)(b) of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 is incompatible with Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Ratio Decidendi

The application is dismissed because the Parole Board's decision was not a borderline case and was justified on the facts; the Board did not err in law in its approach to the burden of proof, and section 28(6)(b) is not incompatible with Article 5 ECHR on these facts.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Legal services funding assessment granted