header-logo header-logo

Human rights

13 January 2011
Issue: 7448 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Osborn v Parole Board, Booth v Parole Board [2010] EWCA Civ 1409, [2010] All ER (D) 185 (Dec)

(1) An oral hearing was not always necessary where an assessment of dangerousness was being undertaken by the parole board on the basis of personality and maturity. It depended on the circumstances, including the information already available from previous assessments. The board was not prohibited from taking into account its own judgment on the basis of the material available to it and to consider whether there was a realistic prospect of that being affected by an oral hearing. The emphasis was on the utility of the oral procedure in assisting in the resolution of the issues before the decision-maker. There was no suggestion that an oral hearing was necessary even where the decision-maker was able fairly to conclude, having regard to the material before it and the issues in play, that an oral hearing could realistically make no difference to its decision.

(2) It was desirable that tribunals should record in brief form what it was in the materials that led them

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll