O'Connell, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board & Anor

O'Connell, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board & Anor

Article 5(4) ECHR is engaged in the context of extended sentences where the Parole Board’s decision is a new basis for detention, but in this case, the absence of an oral hearing did not breach Article 5(4) or common law fairness as the facts did not require it. The risk test applied by the Parole Board was lawful on the facts.

Parties
Claimant: David O’Connell; Defendant: The Parole Board; Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Parole, Article 5(4) ECHR, Procedural Fairness, Extended Sentences, Oral Hearings
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Parole Article 5(4) ECHR Procedural Fairness Extended Sentences Oral Hearings

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

Parties

David O’Connell

Claimant

The Parole Board

Defendant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does Article 5(4) ECHR apply to the Parole Board’s refusal to direct release during the custodial period of an extended sentence under the Criminal Justice Act 2003?
  2. 2 Was the refusal to grant an oral hearing a breach of Article 5(4) or common law fairness?
  3. 3 Was the Parole Board’s application of the risk test under section 247(3) of the 2003 Act lawful?

Ratio Decidendi

Article 5(4) ECHR is engaged in the context of extended sentences where the Parole Board’s decision is a new basis for detention, but in this case, the absence of an oral hearing did not breach Article 5(4) or common law fairness as the facts did not require it. The risk test applied by the Parole Board was lawful on the facts.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed