Willoughby, R (on the application of) v Category A Review Team [2011] EWHC 3483 (Admin) (21 December 2011)

Willoughby, R (on the application of) v Category A Review Team [2011] EWHC 3483 (Admin) (21 December 2011)

The refusal to hold an oral hearing was not wrong as a matter of procedural fairness because the issues raised could be adequately addressed by CART on the papers, there were no disputed issues of fact requiring oral evidence, and the claimant's evidence would not resolve the uncertainties identified by the experts....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 3483 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Lawrence Willoughby; Defendant: Category A Review Team
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment in Administrative Court
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Prisoner Categorisation, Oral Hearings, Judicial Review Standards
Prison Law Administrative Law Human Rights Procedural Fairness Prisoner Categorisation Oral Hearings Judicial Review Standards

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lawrence Willoughby

Claimant

Category A Review Team

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment in Administrative Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal by the Category A Review Team (CART) to hold an oral hearing for the claimant's Category A review was wrong as a matter of procedural fairness under common law.

Ratio Decidendi

The refusal to hold an oral hearing was not wrong as a matter of procedural fairness because the issues raised could be adequately addressed by CART on the papers, there were no disputed issues of fact requiring oral evidence, and the claimant's evidence would not resolve the uncertainties identified by the experts. Procedural fairness did not require an oral hearing in this case.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed