THE PAROLE BOARD FOR SCOTLAND AGAINST DAVID DOLAN [2023] ScotCS CSIH_26 (29 June 2023

THE PAROLE BOARD FOR SCOTLAND AGAINST DAVID DOLAN [2023] ScotCS CSIH_26 (29 June 2023

The Tribunal correctly applied the statutory test by holistically assessing all relevant material and risk factors, and was not required to conduct a balancing exercise between risk and hardship. Its reasoning was adequate and lawful, and the consequences for the petitioner were sufficiently considered within the overall assessment. The Lord Ordinary's decision to reduce the Tribunal's decision was erroneous.

Citation
[2023] ScotCS CSIH_26
Parties
Petitioner & Respondent: David Dolan; Respondents & Reclaimers: The Parole Board for Scotland
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Reclaiming Motion (appeal)
Outcome
Reclaiming motion allowed; Lord Ordinary's interlocutor recalled; petition refused.
Legal Topics
Parole, Detention, Risk Assessment, Release on Licence, Public Protection, Reasoning Standards, Reporting Restrictions
Criminal Law Administrative Law Human Rights Parole Detention Risk Assessment Release on Licence Public Protection +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Dolan

Petitioner & Respondent

The Parole Board for Scotland

Respondents & Reclaimers

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Reclaiming Motion (appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Parole Board applied the correct statutory test for release under section 2(5)(b) of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal failed to consider the consequences of continued detention for the petitioner
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal's reasoning was adequate and lawful

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal correctly applied the statutory test by holistically assessing all relevant material and risk factors, and was not required to conduct a balancing exercise between risk and hardship. Its reasoning was adequate and lawful, and the consequences for the petitioner were sufficiently considered within the overall assessment. The Lord Ordinary's decision to reduce the Tribunal's decision was erroneous.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion allowed; Lord Ordinary's interlocutor recalled; petition refused.

Orders

  • Lord Ordinary's interlocutor of 21 April 2023 recalled
  • Petition refused