Pearce, R (On the Application Of) v Parole Board of England And Wales & Anor [2020] EWHC 3437 (Admin) (16 December 2020)

Pearce, R (On the Application Of) v Parole Board of England And Wales & Anor [2020] EWHC 3437 (Admin) (16 December 2020)

The Parole Board's procedure in this case was not procedurally unfair. The Board was entitled to consider relevant non-conviction allegations in its risk assessment, provided it acted fairly. The Guidance on Allegations is lawful and consistent with established legal principles. There was no requirement for the Board or Secretary of State to disregard allegations that could not be fully proved, nor was there a procedural unfairness in the evidence obtained or considered.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 3437 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Dean Pearce; First Defendant: Parole Board of England and Wales; Second Defendant: Secretary of State for Justice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Parole Board Procedure, Procedural Fairness, Article 5(4) ECHR, Treatment of Non Conviction Allegations, Judicial Review Standards
Public Law Prison Law Human Rights Parole Board Procedure Procedural Fairness Article 5(4) ECHR Treatment of Non Conviction Allegations Judicial Review Standards

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dean Pearce

Claimant

Parole Board of England and Wales

First Defendant

Secretary of State for Justice

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Parole Board's procedure in considering non-conviction allegations was procedurally unfair under common law and/or Article 5(4) ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the Parole Board's Guidance on Allegations is lawful and consistent with legal requirements of fairness

Ratio Decidendi

The Parole Board's procedure in this case was not procedurally unfair. The Board was entitled to consider relevant non-conviction allegations in its risk assessment, provided it acted fairly. The Guidance on Allegations is lawful and consistent with established legal principles. There was no requirement for the Board or Secretary of State to disregard allegations that could not be fully proved, nor was there a procedural unfairness in the evidence obtained or considered.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed