Wells, R (on the application of) v Parole Board

Wells, R (on the application of) v Parole Board

The delay in listing the claimant's parole hearing constituted a breach of Article 5(4) ECHR, but the Parole Board's prioritisation framework is lawful and sufficiently flexible; no mandatory order, declaration, or damages are warranted.

Parties
Claimant: Mark Wells; Defendant: Parole Board
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Substantive Judgment After Rolled Up Hearing
Outcome
Permission granted for judicial review; substantive claim dismissed; no mandatory order, declaration, or damages.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Parole Board Procedure, Article 5(4) ECHR, Prioritisation of Hearings
Public Law Human Rights Judicial Review Parole Board Procedure Article 5(4) ECHR Prioritisation of Hearings

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Wells

Claimant

Parole Board

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Substantive Judgment After Rolled Up Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether delay in listing claimant's parole hearing breached Article 5(4) ECHR
  2. 2 Whether Parole Board's listing policy is unlawful for lack of judicial member involvement
  3. 3 Whether claimant entitled to mandatory order, declaration, or damages

Ratio Decidendi

The delay in listing the claimant's parole hearing constituted a breach of Article 5(4) ECHR, but the Parole Board's prioritisation framework is lawful and sufficiently flexible; no mandatory order, declaration, or damages are warranted.

Court Disposition

Permission granted for judicial review; substantive claim dismissed; no mandatory order, declaration, or damages.

Orders

  • No order as to costs except detailed assessment of claimant's publicly funded costs