Mickey Scott, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice & Anor

Mickey Scott, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice & Anor

The Parole Board and Secretary of State acted lawfully and rationally in refusing to expedite the hearing and in declining to direct re-release, given the conflicting evidence and ongoing risk assessment. Adequate reasons for recall were provided in compliance with statutory and common law duties. The recall decision was justified on public protection grounds, and the delay in listing the Parole Board hearing was not unreasonable given the circumstances and policy framework.

Parties
Claimant: Mickey Scott; 1st Defendant: Secretary of State for Justice; 2nd Defendant: Parole Board for England and Wales
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Rolled Up Oral Hearing for Permission and Relief
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Prisoner Recall, Parole Board Procedure, Disclosure of Information, Procedural Fairness, Article 5 ECHR
Criminal Law Administrative Law Human Rights Prisoner Recall Parole Board Procedure Disclosure of Information Procedural Fairness Article 5 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 7 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mickey Scott

Claimant

Secretary of State for Justice

1st Defendant

Parole Board for England and Wales

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Rolled Up Oral Hearing for Permission and Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Parole Board's refusal to expedite or prioritise the hearing was unlawful
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State's refusal to direct re-release was irrational or procedurally unfair
  3. 3 Whether the Secretary of State failed to provide adequate reasons for recall in breach of statutory duty, common law, or Article 5(2) ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The Parole Board and Secretary of State acted lawfully and rationally in refusing to expedite the hearing and in declining to direct re-release, given the conflicting evidence and ongoing risk assessment. Adequate reasons for recall were provided in compliance with statutory and common law duties. The recall decision was justified on public protection grounds, and the delay in listing the Parole Board hearing was not unreasonable given the circumstances and policy framework.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed