header-logo header-logo

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

Human rights

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

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

DWF—11 appointments

DWF—11 appointments

DWF strengthens North West teams with 11 newly qualified solicitors

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll