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

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

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Firm welcomes partner with specialist expertise in family and art law

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Dual-qualified partner joins international private client team

NEWS
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

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

back-to-top-scroll