O'Connell, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board & Anor [2007] EWHC 2591 (Admin) (13 November 2007)

O'Connell, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board & Anor [2007] EWHC 2591 (Admin) (13 November 2007)

Article 5(4) ECHR is engaged in the context of extended sentences where the Parole Board's decision is determinative of continued detention, but on the facts of this case, the refusal to grant an oral hearing did not breach Article 5(4) or common law fairness as there was no dispute of fact or need for further examination that could have affected the outcome.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 2591 (Admin)
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 / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Parole Board Independence, Article 5(4) ECHR, Oral Hearing Requirements, Extended Sentences, Procedural Fairness
Public Law Human Rights Law Criminal Law Parole Board Independence Article 5(4) ECHR Oral Hearing Requirements Extended Sentences Procedural Fairness

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 16 Party arguments 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 / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does Article 5(4) ECHR apply to the Parole Board's refusal to release a prisoner serving an extended sentence under the Criminal Justice Act 2003?
  2. 2 Does the Parole Board have sufficient independence to comply with Article 5(4) and common law requirements?
  3. 3 Was the refusal to grant an oral hearing a breach of Article 5(4) or common law fairness?

Ratio Decidendi

Article 5(4) ECHR is engaged in the context of extended sentences where the Parole Board's decision is determinative of continued detention, but on the facts of this case, the refusal to grant an oral hearing did not breach Article 5(4) or common law fairness as there was no dispute of fact or need for further examination that could have affected the outcome.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed