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

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
back-to-top-scroll