Robert Gardner, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board

Robert Gardner, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board

The Parole Board had the power under domestic law to exclude the claimant from part of the hearing to protect a vulnerable witness, and the exercise of that power was lawful and compatible with the Convention. The procedure adopted was fair, proportionate, and did not prejudice the claimant, as his counsel was present, able to cross-examine, and take instructions. The proceedings as a whole were fair and satisfied Article 5(4) ECHR.

Parties
Claimant: Robert Gardner; Defendant: The Parole Board
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on the Merits and Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed; application for permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Parole Board Procedure, Exclusion of Prisoner From Hearing, Article 5(4) ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Fair Hearing, Vulnerable Witnesses
Administrative Law Human Rights Law Criminal Law Parole Board Procedure Exclusion of Prisoner From Hearing Article 5(4) ECHR Article 8 ECHR Fair Hearing +1 more

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 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Gardner

Claimant

The Parole Board

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on the Merits and Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Parole Board has power to exclude a prisoner from part of a hearing while evidence is being taken
  2. 2 Whether the exercise of that power was lawful and compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, specifically Articles 5(4) and 8

Ratio Decidendi

The Parole Board had the power under domestic law to exclude the claimant from part of the hearing to protect a vulnerable witness, and the exercise of that power was lawful and compatible with the Convention. The procedure adopted was fair, proportionate, and did not prejudice the claimant, as his counsel was present, able to cross-examine, and take instructions. The proceedings as a whole were fair and satisfied Article 5(4) ECHR.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed; application for permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Application for judicial review dismissed
  • Application for permission to appeal dismissed