Weszka, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board [2012] EWHC 827 (Admin) (05 April 2012)

Weszka, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board [2012] EWHC 827 (Admin) (05 April 2012)

The Parole Board's admission and reliance on late-served police intelligence evidence, without giving the claimant a fair opportunity to consider and respond to its provenance, reliability, and veracity, rendered the procedure unfair. An adjournment was necessary to ensure procedural fairness. The failure to provide this opportunity vitiated the decision to refuse release.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 827 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Mierek Weszka; Defendant: The Parole Board
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; Parole Board decision quashed.
Legal Topics
Parole Board Procedure, Procedural Fairness, Hearsay Evidence, Article 5(4) ECHR, Police Intelligence in Parole Hearings
Administrative Law Criminal Law Human Rights Parole Board Procedure Procedural Fairness Hearsay Evidence Article 5(4) ECHR Police Intelligence in Parole 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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mierek Weszka

Claimant

The Parole Board

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Parole Board's reliance on late-served police intelligence and written statements without opportunity for challenge was procedurally unfair under Article 5(4) ECHR and common law.
  2. 2 Whether the Parole Board erred in relying on evidence of alleged assaults and police intelligence in refusing release.

Ratio Decidendi

The Parole Board's admission and reliance on late-served police intelligence evidence, without giving the claimant a fair opportunity to consider and respond to its provenance, reliability, and veracity, rendered the procedure unfair. An adjournment was necessary to ensure procedural fairness. The failure to provide this opportunity vitiated the decision to refuse release.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; Parole Board decision quashed.

Orders

  • The decision of the Parole Board dated 5 September 2011 is quashed.
  • Matter remitted to the Parole Board for reconsideration in accordance with the judgment.