D' Cunha, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board

D' Cunha, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board

The Panel gave adequate reasons for rejecting professional evidence, did not act irrationally regarding anger management requirements, and gave proper weight to completed offending behaviour courses. However, the Panel failed to conduct a required balancing exercise between risk and benefit when advising on transfer to open conditions, as mandated by the Secretary of State’s Directions. This failure rendered that part of the decision unlawful and it must be quashed and reconsidered.

Parties
Claimant: Ian D’Cunha; Defendant: The Parole Board
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim allowed in part
Legal Topics
Judicial Review of Parole Board, Reasons for Administrative Decisions, Risk Assessment for Release, Directions to Parole Board, Procedural Fairness
Criminal Law Administrative Law Prison Law Judicial Review of Parole Board Reasons for Administrative Decisions Risk Assessment for Release Directions to Parole Board Procedural Fairness

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian D’Cunha

Claimant

The Parole Board

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / 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 work on loss of control and anger was irrational
  3. 3 Whether the Panel gave adequate weight to the Claimant’s completion of accredited offending behaviour courses

Ratio Decidendi

The Panel gave adequate reasons for rejecting professional evidence, did not act irrationally regarding anger management requirements, and gave proper weight to completed offending behaviour courses. However, the Panel failed to conduct a required balancing exercise between risk and benefit when advising on transfer to open conditions, as mandated by the Secretary of State’s Directions. This failure rendered that part of the decision unlawful and it must be quashed and reconsidered.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part

Orders

  • The decision of the Parole Board is quashed insofar as it relates to advice on transfer to open conditions and must be reconsidered in accordance with the relevant Directions.
  • The remainder of the claim is dismissed.