header-logo header-logo

02 September 2020
Issue: 7900 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Profession
printer mail-detail

Mother refused permission to bring judicial review

The High Court has refused permission for a mother to bring a judicial review against a Parole Board decision to release her daughter’s murderer even though he still refuses to reveal where he hid her body

Mary McCourt is the mother of Helen McCourt, who was murdered in 1988 at the age of 22 by Ian Simms. He was released in February, almost 31 years after his conviction.

The mother has campaigned for a change in the law to prevent the release of those who are convicted of murder but will not reveal the whereabouts of their victim’s remains. This resulted in the Prisoners (Disclosure of Information about Victims) Bill, which has received its second reading in the House of Lords but is not yet law.

In R (McCourt) v Parole Board [2020] EWHC 2320 (Admin), Mary McCourt contended that the Board misdirected itself as to the test to be applied, failed to undertake reasonable inquiries and failed to challenge Simms about his denials, reached irrational conclusions, and acted in a way that was procedurally unfair.

Simms disputed Mary McCourt’s standing to bring the claim and submitted that the Board’s decision involved no public law error.

The court held that Mary McCourt did have ‘sufficient interest’ in, and therefore standing to bring, the case.

Its judgment stated: ‘One of the issues before the Parole Board was whether his refusal to reveal the whereabouts of her remains was motivated by a desire to exert psychological control over the remaining family members.

‘In those circumstances, it would in our view be inappropriate to make the possibility of a challenge to a Parole Board decision dependent upon a decision of the Secretary of State to bring judicial review proceedings.’

However, the court concluded that the Board’s decision ‘involved no arguable public law error’, therefore permission was denied.

Issue: 7900 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Slater Heelis—Charlotte Beck

Slater Heelis—Charlotte Beck

Partner and Manchester office lead appointed head of family

Civil Justice Council—Nigel Teasdale

Civil Justice Council—Nigel Teasdale

DWF insurance services director appointed to Civil Justice Council

R3—Jodie Wildridge

R3—Jodie Wildridge

Kings Chambers barrister appointed chair of R3 Yorkshire

NEWS

The abolition of assured shorthold tenancies and section 21 evictions marks the beginning of a ‘brave new world’ for England’s rental sector, writes Daniel Bacon of Seddons GSC

Stephen Gold’s latest Civil Way column rounds up a flurry of procedural and regulatory changes reshaping housing, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and personal injury litigation
Patients are being systematically failed by an NHS complaints regime that is opaque, poorly enforced and often stacked against them, argues Charles Davey of The Barrister Group
A wealthy Russian divorce battle has produced a sharp warning about trying to challenge foreign nuptial agreements in the wrong English court. Writing in NLJ this week, Vanessa Friend and Robert Jackson of Hodge Jones & Allen examine Timokhin v Timokhina, where the High Court enforced Russian judgments arising from a prenuptial agreement despite arguments based on the landmark Radmacher decision
An obscure Victorian tort may be heading for an unexpected revival after a significant Privy Council ruling that could reshape liability for dangerous escapes, according to Richard Buckley, barrister and emeritus professor of law at the University of Reading
back-to-top-scroll