Shane Wylie, R (on the application of) v Parole Board for England and Wales

Shane Wylie, R (on the application of) v Parole Board for England and Wales

The Parole Board's refusal to grant an oral hearing was procedurally unfair because it failed to properly address disputed facts regarding the status of a rape allegation, did not adequately consider whether an oral hearing was appropriate under the Osborn principles, and did not sufficiently assess the claimant's...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Shane Wylie; Defendant: Parole Board for England and Wales; Interested Party: Secretary of State for Justice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Declaration granted; costs awarded to claimant
Legal Topics
Parole Board Procedure, Procedural Fairness, Oral Hearings, Recall of Prisoners, Judicial Review
Administrative Law Criminal Law Prison Law Parole Board Procedure Procedural Fairness Oral Hearings Recall of Prisoners Judicial Review

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Shane Wylie

Claimant

Parole Board for England and Wales

Defendant

Secretary of State for Justice

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to grant an oral hearing by the Parole Board was procedurally unfair
  2. 2 Whether the Parole Board failed to properly consider disputed facts and risk assessment
  3. 3 Whether the Parole Board's decision complied with the principles in R(Osborn) v Parole Board

Ratio Decidendi

The Parole Board's refusal to grant an oral hearing was procedurally unfair because it failed to properly address disputed facts regarding the status of a rape allegation, did not adequately consider whether an oral hearing was appropriate under the Osborn principles, and did not sufficiently assess the claimant's risk or engagement with rehabilitative work. Procedural fairness required either an oral hearing or an adjournment to clarify material facts.

Court Disposition

Declaration granted; costs awarded to claimant

Orders

  • Declaration that the Parole Board's decision of 11 November 2022 was procedurally unfair to the claimant
  • Parole Board to pay the claimant's costs on the standard basis, to be assessed if not agreed