Gifford-Hull v Parole Board for England And Wales

Gifford-Hull v Parole Board for England And Wales

The Parole Board's procedure was procedurally unfair because the claimant was not given a fair opportunity to respond to adverse material in his son's victim personal statement, which was withheld from him and his solicitor. The Board failed to mitigate the effects of non-disclosure, particularly after the psychological report was not obtained, and did not allow the claimant to give further oral evidence on the issues raised. The outcome might have been different had a fair procedure been followed, so the decision must be quashed.

Parties
Claimant: Michael Gifford-Hull; Defendant: Parole Board for England and Wales; Interested Party: Secretary of State for Justice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim allowed; decision quashed for procedural unfairness
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Disclosure of Evidence, Parole Board Procedure, Judicial Review, Victim Personal Statements
Administrative Law Criminal Law Prison Law Procedural Fairness Disclosure of Evidence Parole Board Procedure Judicial Review Victim Personal Statements

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

Parties

Michael Gifford-Hull

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 Parole Board's decision to withhold the full victim personal statement from the claimant and rely on a 'gist' was procedurally unfair
  2. 2 Whether the Parole Board failed to mitigate the effects of non-disclosure and provide a fair opportunity for the claimant to respond to adverse material
  3. 3 Whether the outcome might have been different but for the procedural unfairness

Ratio Decidendi

The Parole Board's procedure was procedurally unfair because the claimant was not given a fair opportunity to respond to adverse material in his son's victim personal statement, which was withheld from him and his solicitor. The Board failed to mitigate the effects of non-disclosure, particularly after the psychological report was not obtained, and did not allow the claimant to give further oral evidence on the issues raised. The outcome might have been different had a fair procedure been followed, so the decision must be quashed.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; decision quashed for procedural unfairness

Orders

  • Declaration that the Parole Board's decision was marred by procedural unfairness
  • Order quashing the Parole Board's decision dated 25 March 2020