M, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board and Secretary of State for Justice

M, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board and Secretary of State for Justice

The Panel's concerns about the claimant's interpersonal relationships, including with women in custody, were supported by material in the dossier and previous reports. The claimant and his advisors should have been aware that these were live issues. The Panel was not under a duty to specifically notify the claimant of its concerns during the hearing, and the claimant was given an opportunity to address them. There was no breach of natural justice or procedural unfairness.

Parties
Claimant: M; Defendant: Parole Board; Interested Party: Secretary of State for Justice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Parole Board Decisions, Natural Justice, Procedural Fairness, Life Sentences, Prisoner Rights
Public Law Prison Law Administrative Law Parole Board Decisions Natural Justice Procedural Fairness Life Sentences Prisoner Rights

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M

Claimant

Parole Board

Defendant

Secretary of State for Justice

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Parole Board breached the rules of natural justice by relying on material and reasons not canvassed during the hearing and on which the claimant had no opportunity to respond
  2. 2 Whether the Panel was under a duty to notify the claimant of concerns about his interpersonal relationships as a matter of fairness

Ratio Decidendi

The Panel's concerns about the claimant's interpersonal relationships, including with women in custody, were supported by material in the dossier and previous reports. The claimant and his advisors should have been aware that these were live issues. The Panel was not under a duty to specifically notify the claimant of its concerns during the hearing, and the claimant was given an opportunity to address them. There was no breach of natural justice or procedural unfairness.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed