Roberts v Parole Board

Roberts v Parole Board

The Parole Board has the inherent power to adopt the SAA procedure in exceptional circumstances to balance the interests of the public, the prisoner, and the source of sensitive material. This power is implied by section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and is consistent with the Board's role as a court for the purposes of Article 5(4) ECHR. The SAA procedure does not breach the Convention or domestic law, and its use is not confined to national security cases.

Parties
Appellant: Roberts; Respondent: Parole Board; Interested Party: Secretary of State (Interested Party)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Administrative Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Parole Board Procedures, Disclosure of Evidence, Special Advocate Procedure, Procedural Fairness, Article 5(4) ECHR, Article 6 ECHR
Public Law Criminal Law Human Rights Parole Board Procedures Disclosure of Evidence Special Advocate Procedure Procedural Fairness Article 5(4) ECHR +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 3 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roberts

Appellant

Parole Board

Respondent

Secretary of State (Interested Party)

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Administrative Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Parole Board have the power to adopt the Specially Appointed Advocate (SAA) procedure in life imprisonment cases?
  2. 2 Is the SAA procedure compatible with domestic law and the European Convention on Human Rights, specifically Article 5(4)?
  3. 3 Is the use of the SAA procedure limited to cases involving national security?

Ratio Decidendi

The Parole Board has the inherent power to adopt the SAA procedure in exceptional circumstances to balance the interests of the public, the prisoner, and the source of sensitive material. This power is implied by section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and is consistent with the Board's role as a court for the purposes of Article 5(4) ECHR. The SAA procedure does not breach the Convention or domestic law, and its use is not confined to national security cases.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to pay the Board’s costs on the usual CLS funding terms
  • Application for permission to appeal to the House of Lords refused