Gourlay, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board

Gourlay, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board

The principles in Davies apply to the Parole Board when it acts in a quasi-judicial capacity, including making recommendations regarding prisoner transfer to open conditions. Unless the Board acts improperly or actively participates in the litigation, no order for costs should be made against it. The Board’s independence, impartiality, and procedures are sufficient for it to be treated as a court or tribunal for costs purposes, even when its decision is only advisory.

Parties
Appellant: Robert Gourlay; Respondent: The Parole Board
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court (queen’s Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs in Judicial Review, Parole Board Decisions, Role of Tribunals, Article 5(4) ECHR, Procedural Fairness
Public Law Prison Law Judicial Review Costs in Judicial Review Parole Board Decisions Role of Tribunals Article 5(4) ECHR Procedural Fairness

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 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Gourlay

Appellant

The Parole Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court (queen’s Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the established practice of making no order for costs against an inferior tribunal or court which plays no active part in a judicial review extend to the Parole Board?
  2. 2 Is the Parole Board to be treated as a court or tribunal for costs purposes when making recommendations regarding prisoner transfer to open conditions?

Ratio Decidendi

The principles in Davies apply to the Parole Board when it acts in a quasi-judicial capacity, including making recommendations regarding prisoner transfer to open conditions. Unless the Board acts improperly or actively participates in the litigation, no order for costs should be made against it. The Board’s independence, impartiality, and procedures are sufficient for it to be treated as a court or tribunal for costs purposes, even when its decision is only advisory.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order for costs; the order of King J is upheld