Cain, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
The Secretary of State's decision to refuse the Parole Board's recommendation was not irrational, did not fail to take into account relevant considerations, did not breach the Tameside duty, and was not procedurally unfair, as the oral evidence did not materially differ from the written reports and the evaluative...
Source-derived case information.
- Parties
- Claimant: CAIN; Defendant: SECRETARY OF STATE FOR JUSTICE
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 11 October 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- Claim dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Parole Board Recommendations, Transfer to Open Conditions, Judicial Review Grounds, Essentiality Test, Tameside Duty, Procedural Fairness
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
CAIN
Claimant
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR JUSTICE
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Secretary of State's refusal to accept the Parole Board's recommendation was irrational
- 2 Whether the Secretary of State failed to take into account relevant considerations
- 3 Whether there was a breach of the Tameside duty to make reasonable enquiry
Ratio Decidendi
The Secretary of State's decision to refuse the Parole Board's recommendation was not irrational, did not fail to take into account relevant considerations, did not breach the Tameside duty, and was not procedurally unfair, as the oral evidence did not materially differ from the written reports and the evaluative judgment was within the Secretary of State's discretion.
Court Disposition
Claim dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment