M, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board & Anor

M, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board & Anor

The anonymity order should be discharged because the evidence does not establish a real and immediate risk to the claimant's life or safety if his identity is published in reports of the judicial review proceedings. The risk can be effectively managed by the prison authorities while the claimant remains in closed or VPU conditions. The public interest in open justice and media reporting outweighs the claimant's Convention rights in the current circumstances.

Parties
Claimant: M; Defendant: The Parole Board; Interested Party: Secretary of State for Justice; Interveners: Associated Newspapers Limited, MGN Limited, News Group Newspapers Limited, Times Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application to Discharge Anonymity Order After Substantive Judgment
Outcome
Anonymity order discharged in respect of the claimant; reporting restriction maintained for third parties FH and SF.
Legal Topics
Open Justice, Reporting Restrictions, Anonymity Orders, Article 2 ECHR, Article 3 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Judicial Review, Prison Law
Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Criminal Law Administrative Law Open Justice Reporting Restrictions Anonymity Orders Article 2 ECHR +5 more

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 5 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M

Claimant

The Parole Board

Defendant

Secretary of State for Justice

Interested Party

Associated Newspapers Limited, MGN Limited, News Group Newspapers Limited, Times Newspapers Limited

Interveners

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application to Discharge Anonymity Order After Substantive Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the anonymity order protecting the claimant's identity in judicial review proceedings should be discharged
  2. 2 Whether publication of the claimant's identity would create a real and immediate risk to his life or safety engaging Articles 2 or 3 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's Article 8 and Article 5 rights outweigh the public interest in open justice and media reporting

Ratio Decidendi

The anonymity order should be discharged because the evidence does not establish a real and immediate risk to the claimant's life or safety if his identity is published in reports of the judicial review proceedings. The risk can be effectively managed by the prison authorities while the claimant remains in closed or VPU conditions. The public interest in open justice and media reporting outweighs the claimant's Convention rights in the current circumstances.

Court Disposition

Anonymity order discharged in respect of the claimant; reporting restriction maintained for third parties FH and SF.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Simon J's order (anonymity for claimant) discharged.
  • New reporting restriction order made: No details of the identity or current location of FH and SF may be published in any report of these proceedings.