McMoran, Re Application for Judicial Review [2025] NIKB 5 (30 January 2025)

McMoran, Re Application for Judicial Review [2025] NIKB 5 (30 January 2025)

The Commissioners did not err in law regarding the meaning of 'harm'; their decision not to direct release was rational given the applicant's risk factors and history; failure to schedule a further review was justified by the proximity of unconditional release; the Probation Board's actions were rational and within professional discretion.

Citation
[2025] NIKB 5
Parties
Applicant: Michael McMoran; First Proposed Respondent: Parole Commissioners for Northern Ireland; Second Proposed Respondent: Probation Board for Northern Ireland
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
30 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Parole, Recall of Prisoners, Statutory Interpretation, Irrationality, Adequacy of Reasons
Criminal Law Administrative Law Prison Law Parole Recall of Prisoners Statutory Interpretation Irrationality Adequacy of Reasons

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael McMoran

Applicant

Parole Commissioners for Northern Ireland

First Proposed Respondent

Probation Board for Northern Ireland

Second Proposed Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Parole Commissioners erred in law regarding the meaning of 'harm' under Article 28(6)(b) of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008
  2. 2 Whether the Commissioners' decision not to direct release was irrational
  3. 3 Whether the failure to schedule a further review was irrational or inadequately reasoned

Ratio Decidendi

The Commissioners did not err in law regarding the meaning of 'harm'; their decision not to direct release was rational given the applicant's risk factors and history; failure to schedule a further review was justified by the proximity of unconditional release; the Probation Board's actions were rational and within professional discretion.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.