Roose v The Parole Board & Anor [2010] EWHC 1780 (Admin) (16 July 2010)

Roose v The Parole Board & Anor [2010] EWHC 1780 (Admin) (16 July 2010)

The importance of what was at stake for the claimant, and the need for the Parole Board to consider the viability of the Dangerous and Severe Personality Disorder programme recommendation, required an oral hearing to satisfy procedural fairness and Article 5(4) ECHR. The refusal to convene an oral hearing was unlawful.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 1780 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Gerald Roose; First Defendant: The Parole Board; Second Defendant: The Secretary of State for Justice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; decision refusing oral hearing quashed
Legal Topics
Parole Board Procedure, Procedural Fairness, Article 5(4) ECHR, Oral Hearings, Life Imprisonment, Dangerous and Severe Personality Disorder Programme
Public Law Prison Law Human Rights Parole Board Procedure Procedural Fairness Article 5(4) ECHR Oral Hearings Life Imprisonment +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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gerald Roose

Claimant

The Parole Board

First Defendant

The Secretary of State for Justice

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to convene an oral hearing for the claimant's parole review breached procedural fairness and Article 5(4) ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the amended Parole Board Rules are incompatible with Article 5(4) ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The importance of what was at stake for the claimant, and the need for the Parole Board to consider the viability of the Dangerous and Severe Personality Disorder programme recommendation, required an oral hearing to satisfy procedural fairness and Article 5(4) ECHR. The refusal to convene an oral hearing was unlawful.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; decision refusing oral hearing quashed

Orders

  • The decision of 12 May 2009 refusing the claimant's request for an oral hearing is quashed.
  • Declaration that procedural fairness and Article 5(4) ECHR required an oral hearing in the claimant's case.