ANDREW BROWN AGAINST THE PAROLE BOARD FOR SCOTLAND [2021] ScotCS CSIH_20 (23 March 2021)

ANDREW BROWN AGAINST THE PAROLE BOARD FOR SCOTLAND [2021] ScotCS CSIH_20 (23 March 2021)

The petition has a real prospect of success because there are substantial arguments that the tribunal did not give the evidence the required degree of scrutiny and its reasons for rejecting unanimous professional opinion were inadequate; thus, permission to proceed must be granted.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] ScotCS CSIH_20
Parties
Petitioner: Andrew Brown; Respondent: The Parole Board for Scotland
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Petition / Appeal Against Refusal of Permission to Proceed to Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Appeal allowed; permission to proceed granted
Legal Topics
Parole, Judicial Review, Detention and Liberty, Standard of Review, Risk Assessment, Procedural Fairness
Criminal Law Administrative Law Human Rights Parole Judicial Review Detention and Liberty Standard of Review Risk Assessment +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Brown

Petitioner

The Parole Board for Scotland

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Petition / Appeal Against Refusal of Permission to Proceed to Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Parole Board's refusal to release the petitioner was unreasonable or inadequately reasoned
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal failed to give anxious scrutiny to the evidence regarding risk to the public
  3. 3 Whether the statutory test for continued confinement was properly applied

Ratio Decidendi

The petition has a real prospect of success because there are substantial arguments that the tribunal did not give the evidence the required degree of scrutiny and its reasons for rejecting unanimous professional opinion were inadequate; thus, permission to proceed must be granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; permission to proceed granted

Orders

  • Permission to proceed with the petition for judicial review is granted
  • Case remitted to the Outer House for a substantive hearing