Brooks, R (on the application of) v Parole Board & Anor

Brooks, R (on the application of) v Parole Board & Anor

The Parole Board acted lawfully in relying on hearsay evidence of rape allegations, given the witness’s unwillingness to attend and the Board’s careful assessment of the evidence and its weight. The Board’s function to protect the public takes priority over securing fairness to the individual, and the procedure adopted was not unfair or irrational in the circumstances.

Parties
Claimant: William Brooks; Defendant: The Parole Board; Defendant: The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Parole Board Procedure, Hearsay Evidence, Fair Hearing, Article 5(4) ECHR, Recall of Life Sentence Prisoner
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Parole Board Procedure Hearsay Evidence Fair Hearing Article 5(4) ECHR Recall of Life Sentence Prisoner

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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Brooks

Claimant

The Parole Board

Defendant

The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Parole Board acted lawfully in considering hearsay allegations of rape against the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the procedure adopted violated the claimant’s right to a fair hearing under Article 5(4) ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the Board should have compelled attendance of the complainant

Ratio Decidendi

The Parole Board acted lawfully in relying on hearsay evidence of rape allegations, given the witness’s unwillingness to attend and the Board’s careful assessment of the evidence and its weight. The Board’s function to protect the public takes priority over securing fairness to the individual, and the procedure adopted was not unfair or irrational in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal referred to the Court of Appeal for consideration
  • Legal aid costs awarded