Gallagher, Re Application For Judicial Review [2005] ScotCS CSOH_126 (27 September 2005)

Gallagher, Re Application For Judicial Review [2005] ScotCS CSOH_126 (27 September 2005)

The Parole Board's decision was procedurally unsatisfactory because it was made in the absence of information the Board itself identified as essential, namely the reliability and scoring of intelligence reports, and thus failed to provide an acceptable method for determining the petitioner's entitlement to parole.

Citation
[2005] ScotCS CSOH_126
Parties
Petitioner: Jason Gallagher; Respondent: Parole Board for Scotland; Respondent: Scottish Ministers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
27 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / First Hearing; Case Continued for Further Hearing
Outcome
No final determination; case continued for further hearing.
Legal Topics
Parole, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review, Prisoner Rights, Confidential Intelligence, Decision Making Process
Public Law Prison Law Administrative Law Parole Procedural Fairness Judicial Review Prisoner Rights Confidential Intelligence +1 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jason Gallagher

Petitioner

Parole Board for Scotland

Respondent

Scottish Ministers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / First Hearing; Case Continued for Further Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Parole Board's decision to deny parole was procedurally fair given the lack of disclosure of intelligence information.
  2. 2 Whether the Board could lawfully rely on undisclosed intelligence without adequate assessment of its reliability.
  3. 3 How to reconcile the interests of procedural fairness with the protection of informants and prison security.

Ratio Decidendi

The Parole Board's decision was procedurally unsatisfactory because it was made in the absence of information the Board itself identified as essential, namely the reliability and scoring of intelligence reports, and thus failed to provide an acceptable method for determining the petitioner's entitlement to parole.

Court Disposition

No final determination; case continued for further hearing.

Orders

  • Case put out by order for further hearing on 4 October 2005.
  • Scottish Ministers invited to reconsider participation and to present the views of the Scottish Prison Service.