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

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

There is no arguable case that the Parole Board or Lifer Manager acted unlawfully or irrationally in refusing release or recategorisation, as they considered all relevant material and did not treat participation in the Extended Sex Offender Treatment Programme as the sole criterion. The claimant's rights under Articles 5 and 3 ECHR were not breached.

Parties
Claimant: Chester; First Defendant: The Parole Board; Second Defendant: Secretary of State for Justice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission to Apply for Judicial Review
Outcome
Permission to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Parole, Prisoner Categorisation, Judicial Review, Article 5 ECHR, Article 3 ECHR
Criminal Law Administrative Law Human Rights Parole Prisoner Categorisation Judicial Review Article 5 ECHR Article 3 ECHR

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chester

Claimant

The Parole Board

First Defendant

Secretary of State for Justice

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission to Apply for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Parole Board and Lifer Manager acted unlawfully in refusing release or recategorisation based solely on non-participation in the Extended Sex Offender Treatment Programme
  2. 2 Whether such refusal breached the claimant's rights under Article 5 and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Ratio Decidendi

There is no arguable case that the Parole Board or Lifer Manager acted unlawfully or irrationally in refusing release or recategorisation, as they considered all relevant material and did not treat participation in the Extended Sex Offender Treatment Programme as the sole criterion. The claimant's rights under Articles 5 and 3 ECHR were not breached.

Court Disposition

Permission to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Transcript of judgment to be made at public expense