Lyefook, R (on the application of) v Parole Board & Anor

The claimant's allegations of deliberate falsehood, slander, and defamation by the Parole Board were not substantiated. The Board's decision was based on evidence and reasonable risk assessment. The claim amounted to disagreement with the Board's assessment, not a legal error or procedural unfairness. The application for judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.

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

Criminal Law Administrative 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 2 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 contained defamatory or slanderous statements about the claimant
3 Whether the claim for judicial review was out of time and if so, whether an extension should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Permission to apply for judicial review refused