R (Osborn) v Parole Board
The Parole Board should hold an oral hearing whenever fairness to the prisoner requires one, and the common law duty of fairness should be considered before the Human Rights Act.
Facts
Three prisoners, Mr Osborn, Mr Booth and Mr Reilly, had their cases considered by the Parole Board, which decided not to recommend their release or transfer to open conditions without holding an oral hearing, deciding their cases on the papers. They argued that the decisions were unfair and breached their rights under article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Legal principle
The Supreme Court held that the Parole Board had acted unfairly by not holding oral hearings. Lord Reed said that the Board should hold an oral hearing whenever fairness to the prisoner requires one in the light of the facts of the case and the importance of what is at stake, for example where facts are in dispute, where the Board cannot otherwise properly decide the case, or where the prisoner's legitimate interest in participating requires it. He also emphasised that the protection of human rights is not a distinct area of law based on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, but permeates our legal system, and that the courts should consider the common law duty of fairness before turning to the Convention.
Related cases on judicial review: procedural impropriety and legitimate expectations
- Cooper v Wandsworth Board of Works (1863) 14 CB NS 180
- Dimes v Proprietors of Grand Junction Canal (1852) 3 HLC 759
- Re Finucane's Application for Judicial Review [2019] UKSC 7
- Lloyd v McMahon [1987] AC 625
- McInnes v Onslow-Fane [1978] 1 WLR 1520
- Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67, [2002] 2 AC 357
- R (Bibi) v Newham London Borough Council [2001] EWCA Civ 607, [2002] 1 WLR 237
- R (Moseley) v Haringey London Borough Council [2014] UKSC 56, [2014] 1 WLR 3947
Studying public law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
