Interested party
The Secretary of State for the Home Department
James Eadie
Kate Gallafent
(Instructed by Treasury Solicitor)
Interveners
Keir Starmar QC
Eric Metcalfe
(Instructed by Justice)
Hearing dates:
20 and 21 April 2005
ON
THURSDAY 7 JULY 2005

HOUSE OF LORDS
OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT
IN THE CAUSE

Roberts (FC) (Appellant) v. Parole Board (Respondents)
[2005] UKHL 45

LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL
My Lords,
1. On 12 December 1966 the appellant, Mr Harry Roberts, was convicted on three counts of murder, having pleaded guilty to two counts and been convicted of the third. The victims in each case were police officers, killed in cold blood at Shepherd’s Bush in August 1966 when, in the course of their duty, they stopped a car in which the appellant and two accomplices were travelling to commit an armed robbery. The trial judge rightly described these crimes, which aroused widespread public outrage, as heinous and suggested that the case was one in which the appellant might never be released. He formally recommended that the appellant serve a term of at least 30 years, and in due course the Home Secretary of the day fixed 30 years as the appellant’s punitive or tariff term. That term expired in 1996, when the appellant was aged 60. The fifth review of his case by the Parole Board, still current, began in September 2001, and this appeal concerns the procedure to be followed in that review. The issue to be determined by the House is agreed to be whether the Parole Board, a statutory tribunal of limited jurisdiction, is able, within the powers granted by the Criminal Justice Act 1991, and compatibly with article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (a) to withhold material relevant to the appellant’s parole review from the appellant’s legal representatives and (b) instead, to disclose that material to a specially appointed advocate, who would represent the appellant, in the absence of the appellant and his legal representatives, at a closed hearing before the Parole Board.
2. Since the House is called upon to decide issues of statutory construction and legal principle, the detailed facts of the appellant’s case are of minor importance. In 2000, pursuant to a recommendation of the Parole Board in December 1999, the appellant was transferred to an open prison where he was held when the current Parole Board review began in September 2001. On 1 October 2001 a parole dossier was disclosed to the appellant’s solicitors containing a number of reports, all favourable to the appellant and recommending his immediate release on life…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R (Roberts) v Parole Board

Details

AGLC: R (Roberts) v Parole Board [2005] UKHL 45
Case: [2005] UKHL 45
Decision Date: 7 July 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Roberts v Parole Board involved an appeal by Mr Harry Roberts, who had served a 30-year term for multiple counts of murder. The issue before the House of Lords was whether the Parole Board could withhold sensitive material from Mr Roberts and his legal representatives and instead disclose it to a specially appointed advocate (SAA) during a closed hearing. The appeal raised questions of statutory interpretation and compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly article 5(4), which guarantees the right to challenge the lawfulness of detention. The House of Lords held that the Parole Board did not have the statutory power to adopt the SAA procedure without clear legislative authority and that the proposed procedure was incompatible with the principles of natural justice and article 5(4) of the Convention. The Lords concluded that the use of the SAA procedure could only be justified in exceptional circumstances where it was necessary to protect the safety of an informant or to ensure the effective functioning of the Parole Board. The appeal was allowed, and the decision of the Parole Board to use the SAA procedure was quashed.

Orders