Judicial review of parole board decision

High Court quashes parole board decision due to procedural unfairness

The High Court, presided over by Tom Little KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, reviewed the case of Adrian Woodhouse, challenging the refusal of his release by the Parole Board for England and Wales. The case highlighted significant procedural issues that led to the decision being overturned.

The judicial review was initiated by Adrian Woodhouse, who had been denied release from custody by the Parole Board. The claimant argued that the hearing process was procedurally unfair, primarily due to time constraints that limited the ability to fully present and test evidence.

The procedural background of the case revealed that the Parole Board had taken a neutral stance, neither contesting nor supporting the claim. The hearing, originally estimated to last three and a half hours, was reduced to two hours without notice, which the claimant argued was insufficient for a fair hearing.

Adrian Woodhouse, who had a history of serious criminal offences, was serving a determinate sentence and had been recalled to custody in 2017. The Parole Board's decision not to release him was based on assessments of risk and the adequacy of his risk management plan. However, the High Court found procedural shortcomings in how the hearing was conducted.

The court examined the legal framework governing parole decisions, particularly the requirements for procedural fairness as outlined in previous case law. The court emphasised that the hearing's reduced duration compromised the fairness of the proceedings, as the claimant's representative was unable to adequately test the evidence presented.

The judgment noted that the Parole Board's decision contained factual inaccuracies that could have been addressed with a more thorough hearing process. The court concluded that the compressed timetable was insufficient for the issues at hand, leading to the quashing of the decision.

The High Court ordered an expedited hearing to ensure a decision could be made before Adrian Woodhouse's automatic release date. The judgment underscored the importance of procedural fairness in parole hearings, highlighting the need for adequate time to address complex issues.

This case serves as a reminder of the critical role of procedural fairness in legal proceedings, particularly in decisions affecting individual liberty. The judgment reinforces the need for parole boards to ensure hearings are conducted in a manner that allows for comprehensive examination of all relevant factors.

Learn More

Explore essential areas of UK employment law, including contracts, workplace policies, and discrimination.