Booth v Parole Board
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Reed,Lord Neuberger,Lady Hale,Lord Kerr,Lord Clarke |
| Judgment Date | 09 October 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] UKSC 61 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Scotland) |
| Date | 09 October 2013 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
368 cases
-
R London Borough of Hillingdon v Mayor of London
...hearing. On the requirement for an oral hearing, the Claimant referred to the principles set out in the case of Osborne v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61, per Lord Reed at [67]–[68], [71], which were applicable 111 As a matter of fairness, the Update Report ought to have been published prior t......
-
The Queen (on the application of Shimei Youngsam) v The Parole Board
...still exists a common law duty, breach of which is susceptible to judicial review. As Lord Reed pointed out in R (Osborn) v Parole Board [2014] A.C. 1115: "The [Human Rights Act 1998] also provides a number of additional tools enabling the courts and government to develop the law when neces......
-
Patrick Hassett and Another v The Secretary of State for Justice
...[27]. 5 The Supreme Court addressed the standard of procedural fairness in relation to decisions made by the Parole Board in R (Osborn) v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61; [2013] 3 WLR 1020. The guidance given by the Supreme Court, discussed in detail below, pointed towards a requirement for the......
-
R (on the application of Keith Rose) v The Secretary of State for Justice
...Discussion 34 In the grounds of claim, dated 1 September 2016, the Claimant relied on the guidance given by the Supreme Court in Osborn and Booth v Parole Board [2014] AC 1115, submitting that although the functions of the Parole Board and of the Director or Category A Review Team are diffe......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
-
TIEAs - A Modern Day Scylla And Charybdis?
...of the Court, and not for the reasonable judgment of the ITA, to determine what procedural fairness requires: R (Osborn) v Parole Board [2014] AC 1115, paragraph 65 (Lord Reed for the Supreme Court). The demands of fairness will, of course, depend on the context. See R v Secretary of State ......
15 books & journal articles
-
Northern Ireland Dimensions to the First Decade of the United Kingdom Supreme Court
...that there had also been a breach of Article 5(4) of the86 In the matter of an application by James Clyde Reilly for Judicial Review [2013] UKSC 61, [2014] AC1115 (Reilly); In re Brownlee’s Application for Judicial Review n17above;Gaughran vChief Constableof Northern Ireland [2015] UKSC 29,......
-
The importance of process and substance
...But its requirements in this context must be linked to the purposes of consultation. In R (Osborn) v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61, [2013] 3 WLR 1020, this court addressed the common law duty of procedural fairness in the determination of a person’s legal rights. Nevertheless, the rst two of......
-
The importance of process and substance
...But its requirements in this context must be linked to the purposes of consultation. In R (Osborn) v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61, [2013] 3 WLR 1020, this court addressed the common law duty of procedural fairness in the determination of a person’s legal rights. Nevertheless, the rst two of......
-
The Unfolding Purpose of Fairness
...virtue that flowed from the respect they signalled in the treatment of people to the procedures applied.120 The 113 Osborn v Parole Board [2014] AC 1115, 1149 [67] (Lord Reed). Similar points were made decades earlier in Lisafa Holdings Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Police (1988) 15 NSWLR 1, 23......
Request a trial to view additional results