Dominic McKilligan v Parole Board for England and Wales

Dominic McKilligan v Parole Board for England and Wales

The Parole Board's refusal to grant an oral hearing was unlawful because it failed to properly consider the principles in Osborn, did not address whether fairness required an oral hearing, ignored the claimant's post-tariff status, failed to consider the absence of recommendations due to unlawful guidance, and did...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Dominic McKilligan (now known as Dominic Ngqobe-Kunuk); 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 on Substantive Application
Outcome
Claim allowed; decision quashed
Legal Topics
Parole Board Procedure, Right to Fair Hearing, Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions, Procedural Fairness, Article 5(4) ECHR
Public Law Prison Law Human Rights Parole Board Procedure Right to Fair Hearing Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions Procedural Fairness Article 5(4) ECHR

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dominic McKilligan (now known as Dominic Ngqobe-Kunuk)

Claimant

Parole Board for England and Wales

Defendant

Secretary of State for Justice

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Substantive Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to grant an oral hearing by the Parole Board was unlawful
  2. 2 Whether fairness required an oral hearing for the claimant
  3. 3 Whether the dossier and reports considered were tainted by unlawfully restricted recommendations

Ratio Decidendi

The Parole Board's refusal to grant an oral hearing was unlawful because it failed to properly consider the principles in Osborn, did not address whether fairness required an oral hearing, ignored the claimant's post-tariff status, failed to consider the absence of recommendations due to unlawful guidance, and did not address disputed facts and out-of-date risk assessments. The decision was therefore quashed and an oral hearing ordered.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; decision quashed

Orders

  • The decision of the Parole Board dated 18 April 2023 refusing the claimant's request for an oral hearing is quashed.
  • There is to be an oral hearing before the Parole Board.