header-logo header-logo

05 May 2017
Issue: 7744 / Categories: Case law
printer mail-detail

Human rights

R (on the application of Youngsam) v Parole Board [2017] EWHC 729 (Admin), [2017] All ER (D) 86 (Apr)

The Administrative Court held that the broad principle of the majority in R (on the application of Whiston) v Secretary of State for Justice [2014] 4 All ER 251 on the scope of Art 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights, while obiter, ought to be followed by inferior courts. Accordingly, Art 5(4) had no application to the claimant’s judicial review proceedings, complaining that the defendant Parole Board’s delays in holding an oral hearing concerning his release, and the delay had not breached common law duty to act within a reasonable time.

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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll