Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Adamson, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 89 (01 May 2026)
The Parole Board refused Adamson’s application to reconsider a paper decision not to direct his release, finding no error of law, irrationality, or procedural unfairness.
Farmer, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 46 (23 February 2026)
The Parole Board refused Farmer’s application for reconsideration, finding no error of law, irrationality, or procedural unfairness in the paper decision not to direct release.
Courtney, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 24 (23 January 2026)
The Parole Board refused Courtney’s reconsideration application, finding no irrationality, procedural unfairness, or error of law in the single-member paper decision.
The Upper Tribunal set aside a paper-only First-tier Tribunal decision on PIP, finding errors in how it handled an oral hearing, mental health evidence, and post-decision evidence.
The Upper Tribunal allowed a PIP appeal, finding the First-tier Tribunal erred in law by deciding the case on the papers without properly considering an oral hearing.
The High Court held that fairness required the Parole Board to grant an oral hearing to a recalled prisoner who disputed key allegations affecting risk.
Fairness required an oral hearing because there were relevant disputed facts, issues of credibility, and matters of risk assessment that could not be adequately resolved on the papers. The claimant needed the opportunity to advance his case orally and respond to questions, and the absence of a hearing would result in procedural unfairness.
Source excerpt
Judicial review of a Category A prisoner’s review succeeded on fairness grounds because no oral hearing was held. Related ECHR claims were dismissed.
The SCMC failed to consider the Claimant's representations and resolve material factual disputes, did not hold an oral hearing when fairness required it, relied on irrational and inappropriate comments, and gave inadequate reasons, resulting in procedural unfairness and breach of Article 8 ECHR.
Source excerpt
Barton, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 24 (30 January 2025)
The Parole Board refused Barton’s application for reconsideration, finding no irrationality or procedural unfairness in the paper decision not to direct release.
Explore more
