Bamber, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Justice

Bamber, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Justice

The Director's misstatement of the expert's opinion did not undermine the overall reasoning or outcome, as the decision was reasonably open to him on the evidence. There was no procedural unfairness or necessity for an oral hearing, and no arguable impasse. Permission for judicial review was refused.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Jeremy Bamber; Defendant: Secretary of State for Justice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission to Seek Judicial Review
Outcome
Permission to seek judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Prisoner Categorisation, Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Oral Hearings, Risk Assessment
Public Law Prison Law Prisoner Categorisation Judicial Review Procedural Fairness Oral Hearings Risk Assessment

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

Parties

Jeremy Bamber

Claimant

Secretary of State for Justice

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission to Seek Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director's decision misrepresented the expert evidence and was unreasonable
  2. 2 Whether fairness required an oral hearing in the categorisation review process

Ratio Decidendi

The Director's misstatement of the expert's opinion did not undermine the overall reasoning or outcome, as the decision was reasonably open to him on the evidence. There was no procedural unfairness or necessity for an oral hearing, and no arguable impasse. Permission for judicial review was refused.

Court Disposition

Permission to seek judicial review refused