M, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board and Secretary of State for Justice [2013] EWHC 141 (Admin) (05 February 2013)

M, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board and Secretary of State for Justice [2013] EWHC 141 (Admin) (05 February 2013)

The Panel's concerns about the claimant's interpersonal relationships were supported by longstanding material in the dossier and previous reviews. The claimant and his advisors should have been aware this was a live issue. The Panel was not under a duty to specifically notify the claimant of its concerns during the hearing, and there was no breach of natural justice or procedural fairness.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 141 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: M; Defendant: The Parole Board; Interested Party: Secretary of State for Justice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Parole Board Decisions, Natural Justice, Procedural Fairness, Life Sentences, Prisoner Rights
Administrative Law Prison Law Human Rights Parole Board Decisions Natural Justice Procedural Fairness Life Sentences Prisoner Rights

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M

Claimant

The Parole Board

Defendant

Secretary of State for Justice

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Parole Board breached natural justice by relying on material and reasons not canvassed during the hearing
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was denied an opportunity to address key concerns about his interpersonal relationships
  3. 3 Whether the Panel was under a duty to notify the claimant of its concerns as a matter of fairness

Ratio Decidendi

The Panel's concerns about the claimant's interpersonal relationships were supported by longstanding material in the dossier and previous reviews. The claimant and his advisors should have been aware this was a live issue. The Panel was not under a duty to specifically notify the claimant of its concerns during the hearing, and there was no breach of natural justice or procedural fairness.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed