Stubbs, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board for England and Wales

The panel's decision was not irrational or unlawful; the requirement for additional work was adequately specified and the inability to carry out the work was due to lack of facilities, which is the Secretary of State's responsibility, not the Parole Board's.

Source-derived case information.

Parties: Claimant: Marlon Stubbs; Respondent: The Parole Board for England and Wales
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 12 January 2016
Procedural Posture: Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome: Application for judicial review declined
Legal Topics: Parole Board Decisions, Imprisonment for Public Protection, Judicial Review, Rationality of Administrative Decisions, Secretary of State's Directions

Criminal Law Administrative Law Prison Law Parole Board Decisions Imprisonment for Public Protection Judicial Review Rationality of Administrative Decisions Secretary of State's Directions

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Marlon Stubbs

Claimant

The Parole Board for England and Wales

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the Parole Board's refusal to recommend transfer to open prison was irrational
2 Whether the requirement for additional offending-behaviour work was inadequately specified or unworkable

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review declined

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.