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

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

The Parole Board's reliance on late-served police intelligence evidence, without giving the Claimant a fair opportunity to consider and respond to it, rendered the proceedings procedurally unfair. The absence of an adjournment to address the provenance and weight of the evidence, and the lack of notice, deprived the Claimant of a fair hearing. The decision is quashed and must be reconsidered by a new panel.

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 for judicial review allowed; Parole Board decision quashed.
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Parole Board Decisions, Hearsay Evidence, Judicial Review, Article 5(4) ECHR
Administrative Law Criminal Law Human Rights Procedural Fairness Parole Board Decisions Hearsay Evidence Judicial Review Article 5(4) ECHR

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 17 Party arguments 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 evidence was procedurally fair
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant had a fair opportunity to respond to adverse evidence
  3. 3 Whether the Parole Board could rely on hearsay evidence without oral testimony from the complainant

Ratio Decidendi

The Parole Board's reliance on late-served police intelligence evidence, without giving the Claimant a fair opportunity to consider and respond to it, rendered the proceedings procedurally unfair. The absence of an adjournment to address the provenance and weight of the evidence, and the lack of notice, deprived the Claimant of a fair hearing. The decision is quashed and must be reconsidered by a new panel.

Court Disposition

Claim for judicial review allowed; Parole Board decision quashed.

Orders

  • The Defendant’s decision dated 5 September 2012 is set aside.
  • The Defendant shall invite the Secretary of State for Justice to refer the Claimant’s case back to the Defendant immediately and upon receipt of such a reference, will convene an oral hearing as soon as practicable.