Hall & Anor v Parole Board of England & Wales [2015] EWHC 252 (Admin) (13 February 2015)

Hall & Anor v Parole Board of England & Wales [2015] EWHC 252 (Admin) (13 February 2015)

The Parole Board is not required to consider the abolition of IPP sentences by LASPO 2012 or to conduct a comparative or balancing exercise with prisoners sentenced under different regimes. Its statutory duty is confined to assessing whether continued detention is necessary for public protection based on risk. Article 8 ECHR does not require the Board to balance private and family life interests against public protection in this context. The Board's guidance lawfully reflects the statutory test, and the continued detention of the claimants, including Mr Hall, is neither arbitrary nor disproportionate under the Convention.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 252 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Mr Hall; Claimant: Mr Koselka; Defendant: Parole Board
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection (ipp), Parole Board Decisions, Article 5 ECHR (right to Liberty), Article 7 ECHR (no Punishment Without Law), Article 8 ECHR (right to Private and Family Life), Article 14 ECHR (prohibition of Discrimination), LASPO 2012, Risk Assessment, Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Prison Law Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection (ipp) Parole Board Decisions Article 5 ECHR (right to Liberty) Article 7 ECHR (no Punishment Without Law) Article 8 ECHR (right to Private and Family Life) +4 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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Hall

Claimant

Mr Koselka

Claimant

Parole Board

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Parole Board unlawfully failed to consider the abolition of IPP sentences by LASPO 2012 as a material consideration in release decisions.
  2. 2 Whether the Parole Board unlawfully failed to consider Article 8 ECHR (private and family life) in its risk assessment for release.
  3. 3 Whether Parole Board guidance is unlawful for failing to direct panels to consider certain Convention rights and anxious scrutiny.

Ratio Decidendi

The Parole Board is not required to consider the abolition of IPP sentences by LASPO 2012 or to conduct a comparative or balancing exercise with prisoners sentenced under different regimes. Its statutory duty is confined to assessing whether continued detention is necessary for public protection based on risk. Article 8 ECHR does not require the Board to balance private and family life interests against public protection in this context. The Board's guidance lawfully reflects the statutory test, and the continued detention of the claimants, including Mr Hall, is neither arbitrary nor disproportionate under the Convention.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed