Boylan, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board
The refusal to convene an oral hearing was not unfair because the Parole Board's decision was based on the need for further work to address continuing poor consequential thinking skills, which required closed conditions. The Board was willing to assume in the claimant's favour that he was motivated to lead a...
Source-derived case information.
- Parties
- Claimant: Boylan; Defendant: The Parole Board
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 10 April 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Substantive Hearing and Judgment
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review of Parole Board Decisions, Fairness of Procedure, Right to Oral Hearing, Risk Assessment in Parole
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Boylan
Claimant
The Parole Board
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Substantive Hearing and Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the refusal to convene an oral hearing by the Parole Board was unfair
- 2 Whether the Parole Board's decision required live evidence to assess risk
Ratio Decidendi
The refusal to convene an oral hearing was not unfair because the Parole Board's decision was based on the need for further work to address continuing poor consequential thinking skills, which required closed conditions. The Board was willing to assume in the claimant's favour that he was motivated to lead a law-abiding life, and an oral hearing would not have affected the outcome. Therefore, the process was fair and the application for judicial review fails.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment