Gunn, R (on the application of) v Secretary State for Justice & Anor

Gunn, R (on the application of) v Secretary State for Justice & Anor

The MAPPA panel lawfully assessed the claimant as Category 3, Level 3 risk based on credible intelligence and prior convictions. The licence conditions, including exclusion from Nottingham and curfews, are proportionate and justified under Article 8 ECHR, balancing public protection and the claimant's family life....

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: David Gunn; Defendant: Secretary State for Justice; Defendant: Nottinghamshire Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements Board
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Licence Conditions, Risk Assessment, Article 8 ECHR, MAPPA Management, Proportionality, Public Protection
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Licence Conditions Risk Assessment Article 8 ECHR MAPPA Management Proportionality +1 more

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Gunn

Claimant

Secretary State for Justice

Defendant

Nottinghamshire Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements Board

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's MAPPA risk assessment and licence conditions were lawful and proportionate
  2. 2 Whether the licence conditions breached Article 8 ECHR rights to private and family life

Ratio Decidendi

The MAPPA panel lawfully assessed the claimant as Category 3, Level 3 risk based on credible intelligence and prior convictions. The licence conditions, including exclusion from Nottingham and curfews, are proportionate and justified under Article 8 ECHR, balancing public protection and the claimant's family life. The process was fair and the interference with rights was necessary and lawful.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed