Merry, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board

Merry, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board

The refusal to grant an oral hearing was procedurally unfair because there were disputed facts and issues of credibility that required oral examination, and the Parole Board failed to apply the principles set out in Osborn v Parole Board.

Parties
Claimant: Stuart Merry; Respondent: The Parole Board
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Substantive Application
Outcome
Decision of 6 August 2013 quashed
Legal Topics
Parole, Procedural Fairness, Right to Oral Hearing, Judicial Review, Article 5(4) ECHR
Criminal Law Administrative Law Human Rights Parole Procedural Fairness Right to Oral Hearing Judicial Review Article 5(4) ECHR

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

Parties

Stuart Merry

Claimant

The Parole Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Substantive Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to grant an oral hearing by the Parole Board was procedurally fair
  2. 2 Whether the decision breached common law and Article 5(4) ECHR requirements

Ratio Decidendi

The refusal to grant an oral hearing was procedurally unfair because there were disputed facts and issues of credibility that required oral examination, and the Parole Board failed to apply the principles set out in Osborn v Parole Board.

Court Disposition

Decision of 6 August 2013 quashed

Orders

  • The decision of the Parole Board dated 6 August 2013 is formally quashed.
  • Order for assessment of publicly funded costs in the standard form.