Paul Somers, R (on the application of) v Parole Board for England and Wales

Paul Somers, R (on the application of) v Parole Board for England and Wales

The Parole Board erred in law by failing to apply the correct test for procedural fairness as set out in Osborn. For a post-tariff lifer, there is a strong presumption in favour of an oral hearing, especially where there are disputed facts, new material, or issues of insight and risk. The Board wrongly focused on the likelihood of release and professional support, rather than whether fairness required a hearing. The refusal to grant an oral hearing was procedurally unfair and breached Article 5(4) ECHR.

Parties
Claimant: Paul Somers; Defendant: Parole Board for England and Wales; Interested Party: Secretary of State for Justice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Application to Quash Parole Board Decision
Outcome
Claim allowed; Parole Board decision quashed
Legal Topics
Parole, Procedural Fairness, Article 5(4) ECHR, Oral Hearings, Post Tariff Life Sentences
Criminal Law Administrative Law Human Rights Parole Procedural Fairness Article 5(4) ECHR Oral Hearings Post Tariff Life Sentences

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Somers

Claimant

Parole Board for England and Wales

Defendant

Secretary of State for Justice

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Application to Quash Parole Board Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to grant an oral hearing for a post-tariff lifer’s parole review was procedurally unfair at common law and under Article 5(4) ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the Parole Board applied the correct legal test in refusing an oral hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The Parole Board erred in law by failing to apply the correct test for procedural fairness as set out in Osborn. For a post-tariff lifer, there is a strong presumption in favour of an oral hearing, especially where there are disputed facts, new material, or issues of insight and risk. The Board wrongly focused on the likelihood of release and professional support, rather than whether fairness required a hearing. The refusal to grant an oral hearing was procedurally unfair and breached Article 5(4) ECHR.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; Parole Board decision quashed

Orders

  • The decision of the Parole Board dated 5 January 2022 is quashed.
  • The matter is remitted for an oral hearing of the Claimant’s parole review to be held.