Roose v The Parole Board & Anor

Roose v The Parole Board & Anor

Given the importance of what was at stake for the claimant, the impact of the Board's comments on his future management, and the need to test the viability of the Dangerous and Severe Personality Disorder programme recommendation, procedural fairness and Article 5(4) ECHR required an oral hearing in this case. The refusal to convene one was unlawful.

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 / Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; decision refusing oral hearing quashed
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Right to Oral Hearing, Article 5(4) ECHR, Parole Board Procedure
Public Law Prison Law Human Rights Procedural Fairness Right to Oral Hearing Article 5(4) ECHR Parole Board Procedure

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
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 / 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 compatible with Article 5(4) ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

Given the importance of what was at stake for the claimant, the impact of the Board's comments on his future management, and the need to test the viability of the Dangerous and Severe Personality Disorder programme recommendation, procedural fairness and Article 5(4) ECHR required an oral hearing in this case. The refusal to convene one 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.