Legal Research
Cases
R (West) v Parole Board

R (West) v Parole Board

Case [2005] UKHL 1 27 January 2005

Procedural Fairness

Jurisdiction

Statutory Interpretation

Administrative Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

HOUSE OF LORDS

SESSION 2004–05
[2005] UKHL 1

on appeal from:[2003] EWCA Civ 1269

[2002] EWCA Civ 1641

OPINIONS

OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL
FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE

Regina v. Parole Board (Respondents) ex parte Smith (FC) (Appellant) Regina v. Parole Board (Respondents) ex parte West (FC) (Appellant) (Conjoined Appeals) ON THURSDAY 27 JANUARY 2005 The Appellate Committee comprised: Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe Lord Carswell HOUSE OF LORDS OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE

Regina v. Parole Board (Respondents) ex parte Smith (FC)
(Appellant)

Regina v. Parole Board (Respondents) ex parte West (FC)
(Appellant)
(Conjoined Appeals)
[2005] UKHL 1

LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL

My Lords,

1. These appeals concern the procedure to be followed by the Parole Board when a determinate sentence prisoner, released on licence, seeks to resist subsequent revocation of his licence. The appellants contend that such a prisoner should be offered an oral hearing at which the prisoner can appear and, either on his own behalf or through a legal representative, present his case, unless the prisoner chooses to forgo such a hearing. They base their argument on the common law and on articles 5 and 6 of the European Convention, relying on both the criminal and civil limbs of article 6. The respondent Parole Board accepts that in resolving challenges to revocation of their licences by determinate sentence prisoners it is under a public law duty to act in a procedurally fair manner. It accepts that in some cases, as where there is a disputed issue of fact material to the outcome, procedural fairness may require it to hold an oral hearing at which the issue may be contested. It accepts, through leading counsel, that it may in the past have been too slow to grant oral hearings. But it strongly resists the submission that there should be any rule or presumption in favour of an oral hearing in such cases, contending that neither the common law nor the European Convention requires such a rule or such a presumption.

Justin West: the facts

2. The appellant West was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment for affray on 27 October 2000. He was thus a short-term prisoner within the meaning of section 33(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, and by virtue of section 33(1) of the Act the Secretary of State was obliged to release him on licence once he had served one-half of his sentence. In the ordinary way, his licence would have remained in force until the date on which he would (but for his release) have served three-quarters of his sentence: section 37(1).

3. The appellant, having spent some time in custody before sentence, was duly released on licence on 6 August 2001. His licence was due to expire on 7 May 2002. His licence included terms that he should place himself under the supervision of any nominated probation officer; should keep in touch with the…

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 (West) v Parole Board

Details

AGLC: R (West) v Parole Board [2005] UKHL 1
Case: [2005] UKHL 1
Decision Date: 27 January 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeals in R (West) v Parole Board concerned the procedures followed by the Parole Board when a prisoner released on licence sought to resist revocation of his licence. The appellants argued that a prisoner in such a situation should be offered an oral hearing at which the prisoner could present his case, unless the prisoner chose to forgo such a hearing. The Parole Board accepted that in resolving challenges to revocation of their licences by determinate sentence prisoners it was under a public law duty to act in a procedurally fair manner, but resisted any rule or presumption in favour of an oral hearing. The House of Lords considered the arguments based on the common law and on articles 5 and 6 of the European Convention. The Lords found that the common law duty of procedural fairness required the Board to hold an oral hearing in cases where a determinate sentence prisoner resisted recall, if he did not decline the offer of such a hearing. The Lords concluded that the Parole Board had breached its duty of procedural fairness owed to the appellant by failing to offer him an oral hearing of his representations against revocation of his licence. The Board was accordingly in breach of article 5(4) of the Convention. The Board must pay the costs of the appellant in the House and below. The parties are invited to make written submissions within 14 days on the appropriate costs order in the case of the other appellant.

Orders