Alan Matthew Daulby, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board for England and Wales

Alan Matthew Daulby, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board for England and Wales

Procedural fairness did not require an oral hearing in this case because the claimant had already had an oral hearing following recall, the key factual issues had been previously determined, there was no significant new evidence or engagement with risk reduction work, and the written submissions and dossier provided a sufficient basis for the Parole Board’s risk assessment. The decision was consistent with the principles in Osborn and not outcome-focused.

Parties
Claimant: Alan Matthew Daulby; Defendant: Parole Board for England and Wales; Interested Party: Secretary of State for Justice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Claim for Judicial Review
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Parole, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review, Oral Hearing Rights, Risk Assessment, Recall to Prison
Criminal Law Administrative Law Prison Law Parole Procedural Fairness Judicial Review Oral Hearing Rights Risk Assessment +1 more

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Matthew Daulby

Claimant

Parole Board for England and Wales

Defendant

Secretary of State for Justice

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Claim for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal by the Parole Board to grant an oral hearing in the claimant's parole review was procedurally unfair
  2. 2 Whether the Parole Board misapplied the principles in Osborn v Parole Board regarding oral hearings

Ratio Decidendi

Procedural fairness did not require an oral hearing in this case because the claimant had already had an oral hearing following recall, the key factual issues had been previously determined, there was no significant new evidence or engagement with risk reduction work, and the written submissions and dossier provided a sufficient basis for the Parole Board’s risk assessment. The decision was consistent with the principles in Osborn and not outcome-focused.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed