D' Cunha, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board [2011] EWHC 128 (Admin) (01 February 2011)

D' Cunha, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board [2011] EWHC 128 (Admin) (01 February 2011)

The Parole Board gave adequate and intelligible reasons for rejecting the professional evidence supporting release or transfer to open conditions, its assessment of the claimant's risk and need for further work was rational and within the range of reasonable decisions, it gave proper weight to the claimant's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 128 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: IAN D'CUNHA; Defendant: THE PAROLE BOARD
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review of Parole Board, Reasons for Administrative Decisions, Risk Assessment for Release of Prisoners, Interpretation of Statutory Directions, Legitimate Expectation, Article 5(4) ECHR
Administrative Law Criminal Law Prison Law Human Rights Judicial Review of Parole Board Reasons for Administrative Decisions Risk Assessment for Release of Prisoners Interpretation of Statutory Directions +2 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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

IAN D'CUNHA

Claimant

THE PAROLE BOARD

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Parole Board gave adequate reasons for rejecting professional evidence supporting release or transfer to open conditions
  2. 2 Whether the Panel's requirement for further anger management work was irrational
  3. 3 Whether the Panel gave adequate weight to the claimant's completion of accredited offending behaviour courses

Ratio Decidendi

The Parole Board gave adequate and intelligible reasons for rejecting the professional evidence supporting release or transfer to open conditions, its assessment of the claimant's risk and need for further work was rational and within the range of reasonable decisions, it gave proper weight to the claimant's achievements, and it did not err in its approach to the balancing exercise for open conditions. The decision was lawful and not susceptible to judicial review on the grounds advanced.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed