Stubbs, R (On the Application Of) v The Parole Board [2021] EWHC 605 (Admin) (16 March 2021)

Stubbs, R (On the Application Of) v The Parole Board [2021] EWHC 605 (Admin) (16 March 2021)

The Parole Board erred in law by applying the wrong test for an oral hearing, treating the facts in the dossier as presumptively correct, and failing to consider whether fairness required an oral hearing in light of disputed facts, the need for effective participation, and the claimant's long period in custody. This breached procedural fairness under common law and Article 5(4) ECHR.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 605 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Darren Stubbs; Defendant: The Parole Board; Interested Party: Secretary of State for Justice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on the Merits
Outcome
Claim allowed; decision quashed
Legal Topics
Parole Board Procedure, Procedural Fairness, Right to Oral Hearing, Article 5(4) ECHR, Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions
Administrative Law Prison Law Human Rights Parole Board Procedure Procedural Fairness Right to Oral Hearing Article 5(4) ECHR Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Darren Stubbs

Claimant

The Parole Board

Defendant

Secretary of State for Justice

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on the Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Parole Board erred in law by refusing an oral hearing for the claimant's parole review
  2. 2 Whether the refusal breached procedural fairness under common law and Article 5(4) ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The Parole Board erred in law by applying the wrong test for an oral hearing, treating the facts in the dossier as presumptively correct, and failing to consider whether fairness required an oral hearing in light of disputed facts, the need for effective participation, and the claimant's long period in custody. This breached procedural fairness under common law and Article 5(4) ECHR.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; decision quashed

Orders

  • The Parole Board's refusal of an oral hearing is quashed.
  • The Parole Board is directed to hold an oral hearing for the claimant's parole review.