Radford v Parole Board

Radford was a prisoner who had been released on parole. After committing a further offence, the parole board revoked his parole. Radford applied for judicial review of the board's decision. The court was required to determine whether the board's decision was based on false, misleading or irrelevant information. The central legal issue was whether the parole board had considered irrelevant information in making its decision to revoke parole.

The court held that the parole board was not required to limit its consideration to only relevant information. The board was entitled to take into account all information that was relevant to the decision. The court found that the board's decision was based on relevant information, and that the board had not erred in law. The court dismissed Radford's application for judicial review. The board's decision to revoke parole was affirmed.

The court found that the parole board had considered all relevant information in making its decision. The court held that the board was not required to exclude irrelevant information from its consideration, as long as the decision was based on relevant information. The court found that the board's decision was based on relevant information and was not based on false, misleading or irrelevant information. The application for judicial review was dismissed, and the board's decision to revoke parole was affirmed.