Brooke & Ors v The Parole Board

Brooke & Ors v The Parole Board

The Parole Board was found not to be sufficiently independent of the Secretary of State for the purposes of the common law test. The claimants are entitled to declarations to that effect. Full costs were awarded to Brooke, Ter-Ogannisyan, and O'Connell, as the unsuccessful points did not significantly increase costs. Murphy's costs were limited to 90% due to a separate, unsuccessful reasons challenge. Permission to appeal was granted due to the importance and arguable grounds of the case.

Parties
Claimant: Michael Brooke & Ors; Defendant: The Parole Board; Defendant: The Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 September 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Post Judgment Costs and Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Declarations granted; costs orders made; permission to appeal granted; stay of declarations and costs order pending appeal.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Independence of Parole Board, Costs Orders, Article 5(4) ECHR, Common Law Bias
Administrative Law Human Rights Judicial Review Independence of Parole Board Costs Orders Article 5(4) ECHR Common Law Bias

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

Parties

Michael Brooke & Ors

Claimant

The Parole Board

Defendant

The Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Post Judgment Costs and Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Parole Board is sufficiently independent of the Secretary of State to meet Convention and common law requirements
  2. 2 Appropriate costs order following judgment in favour of claimants
  3. 3 Permission to appeal and stay of declarations

Ratio Decidendi

The Parole Board was found not to be sufficiently independent of the Secretary of State for the purposes of the common law test. The claimants are entitled to declarations to that effect. Full costs were awarded to Brooke, Ter-Ogannisyan, and O'Connell, as the unsuccessful points did not significantly increase costs. Murphy's costs were limited to 90% due to a separate, unsuccessful reasons challenge. Permission to appeal was granted due to the importance and arguable grounds of the case.

Court Disposition

Declarations granted; costs orders made; permission to appeal granted; stay of declarations and costs order pending appeal.

Orders

  • Declarations in the form set out in the judgment granted to claimants.
  • Second defendant to pay claimants' costs: full costs to Brooke, Ter-Ogannisyan, and O'Connell (limited to independence issue); Murphy to recover 90% of costs.