Ismailaj v The Parole Board of England & Wales & Anor

Ismailaj v The Parole Board of England & Wales & Anor

The court held that the Parole Board was not required to hold an oral hearing in this case because there were no material factual disputes that could have affected the outcome, and the Board's decision was not undermined by failure to consider any material factors. The Board acted within its discretion and expertise, and the process was fair.

Parties
Claimant: Vullnet Ismailaj; First Defendant: The Parole Board of England & Wales; Second Defendant: Secretary of State for Justice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Parole Board Procedure, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review, Deportation, Risk Assessment, Article 5 ECHR, Article 14 ECHR
Criminal Law Administrative Law Human Rights Parole Board Procedure Procedural Fairness Judicial Review Deportation Risk Assessment +2 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vullnet Ismailaj

Claimant

The Parole Board of England & Wales

First Defendant

Secretary of State for Justice

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Parole Board was required to hold an oral hearing before refusing parole
  2. 2 Whether the Parole Board failed to consider material factors in its decision
  3. 3 Whether the decision was procedurally unfair or irrational

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Parole Board was not required to hold an oral hearing in this case because there were no material factual disputes that could have affected the outcome, and the Board's decision was not undermined by failure to consider any material factors. The Board acted within its discretion and expertise, and the process was fair.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed