Roberts v Parole Board

Roberts v Parole Board

The Parole Board has the power to appoint a Specially Appointed Advocate in exceptional circumstances for both mandatory and discretionary life prisoners. The SAA procedure is fair and proportionate, given the real risk to the safety of the source and the risk of inadvertent disclosure. There is no discrimination under Article 14 ECHR as the same power exists for discretionary life prisoners.

Parties
Claimant: Harry Maurice Roberts; Defendant: The Parole Board; Interested Party: The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Open Matters
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Parole Board Procedures, Special Advocate Appointment, Disclosure of Sensitive Material, Discrimination Under ECHR, Fairness and Proportionality
Public Law Human Rights Prison Law Parole Board Procedures Special Advocate Appointment Disclosure of Sensitive Material Discrimination Under ECHR Fairness and Proportionality

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harry Maurice Roberts

Claimant

The Parole Board

Defendant

The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Open Matters

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appointment of a Specially Appointed Advocate (SAA) in parole proceedings breaches Article 14 and Article 5(4) of the ECHR due to discrimination against mandatory life prisoners
  2. 2 Whether the SAA procedure is fair and proportionate in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The Parole Board has the power to appoint a Specially Appointed Advocate in exceptional circumstances for both mandatory and discretionary life prisoners. The SAA procedure is fair and proportionate, given the real risk to the safety of the source and the risk of inadvertent disclosure. There is no discrimination under Article 14 ECHR as the same power exists for discretionary life prisoners.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Parole Board awarded costs on usual Legal Aid terms
  • Claimant's costs to be assessed for public funding purposes