Lyefook, R (on the application of) v Parole Board & Anor [2012] EWHC 3556 (Admin) (26 November 2012)

The claimant failed to establish any arguable case that the Parole Board's decision was unlawful, procedurally unfair, or based on deliberate falsehoods. The Board acted within its statutory remit, properly considered conflicting professional evidence, and made a reasoned risk assessment. The claim amounted to disagreement with the Board's judgment, not a legal error.

Citation: [2012] EWHC 3556 (Admin)
Parties: Claimant: Kimon Lyefook; Defendant: Parole Board; Defendant: Secretary of State for Justice
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 26 November 2012
Procedural Posture: Judicial Review / Renewed Oral Application for Permission to Apply for Judicial Review
Outcome: Permission to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics: Parole, Judicial Review, Prisoner Rights, Procedural Fairness

Administrative Law Criminal Law Human Rights Parole Judicial Review Prisoner Rights Procedural Fairness

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Kimon Lyefook

Claimant

Parole Board

Defendant

Secretary of State for Justice

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Renewed Oral Application for Permission to Apply for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

1 Whether the Parole Board's refusal to grant parole was unlawful or procedurally unfair
2 Whether the Parole Board's decision involved slander or defamation of the claimant
3 Whether the claim for judicial review was out of time and if so, whether time should be extended

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Permission to apply for judicial review refused