Green v The Parole Board & Anor

The Parole Board's decision letter did not demonstrate the required balancing exercise between risk and benefit for transfer to open conditions, rendering the decision unlawful. The Secretary of State failed to justify the 18-month review period as reasonable, making it non-compliant with Article 5(4) ECHR.

Parties: Claimant: Darren Green; First Defendant: The Parole Board; Second Defendant: The Secretary of State for Justice
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 04 October 2017
Procedural Posture: Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome: Claim allowed in part
Legal Topics: Parole, Judicial Review, Indeterminate Sentences, Procedural Fairness, Review Intervals, Costs

Criminal Law Administrative Law Human Rights Parole Judicial Review Indeterminate Sentences Procedural Fairness Review Intervals +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4

Parties

Darren Green

Claimant

The Parole Board

First Defendant

The Secretary of State for Justice

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the Parole Board failed to carry out the required balancing exercise between risk and benefit in refusing transfer to open conditions
2 Whether the Secretary of State's decision to set an 18-month review period was reasonable and compliant with Article 5(4) ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part

Orders

The Parole Board's decision to refuse transfer to open conditions is quashed.
The request for transfer to open conditions is remitted for fresh consideration by the Parole Board.