header-logo header-logo

Mother refused permission to bring judicial review

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

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