R v Parole Board, ex parte Lodomez
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 August 1994 |
| Date | 03 August 1994 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Queen's Bench Divisional Court
Parole Board - release on licence - reasons for refusal must be written
When deciding not to order the release on licence of a discretionary life prisoner, the Parole Board had to record in writing not only its decision but also its reasons for that decision.
The Queen's Bench Divisional Court (Lord Justice Leggatt and Mr Justice Buxton) so stated on May 4 when quashing a decision of the Parole Board on June 29, 1993 not to order the immediate release on licence in accordance with section 34 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 of Victor Lodomez, a discretionary life prisoner, and directing that his review be reheard.
LORD JUSTICE LEGGATT said that rule 15(2) of the Parole Board Rules 1992 required a decision in writing with reasons signed by the chairman to be sent to the prisoner within seven days of the review. That rule meant what it said: not only the decision not to release but also the reasons had to be recorded in writing and communicated within the prescribed seven days.
Reasons had to be full, substantial and sufficient at the time of the review. It was not satisfactory to attempt to comply with the rule by giving a single sentence referring to the prisoner's background history alone with no reference...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Caffrey v Governor of Portlaoise Prison
...ART 6 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 SCHED 22 (UK) CRIME (SENTENCES) ACT 1997 S28(6)(B) R v PAROLE BOARD, EX PARTE LODOMEZ 1994 COD 525 26 BMLR 162 TRANSFER OF SENTENCED PERSONS ACT 1995 S1(1) CONVENTION ON THE TRANSFER OF SENTENCED PERSONS 21.3.1983 ART 9(3) CONVENTION ON THE TRANSFER OF SENTEN......
-
R (Hirst) v Parole Board and Secretary of State for the Home Department
...more than that it is not merely perceptible or minimal.” 5753. The decision in Bradley was followed in R v Parole Board ex parte Ladomez 26 BMLR 162. At 174 Leggat LJ said: “It is, in my judgment, important to scotch the notion that since the 1991 Act came into effect, the board has been re......
-
R v Parole Board, ex parte Watson
...was substantially (if not technically) at liberty. There was no longer a presumption in favour of continued imprisonment (see R v Parole Board ex parte Lodomez, unreported, 4 May 1994). Ground had now to be shown for depriving the former prisoner of the freedom he had been held entitled to ......
-
R (Girling) v Parole Board and another
...no doubt for this reason that courts have used somewhat different expressions in describing the position under section 32(6) . In R v Parole Board ex p Gordon, unreported, 7 November 2000, Smith J asked whether the Board had carried out a balancing exercise "as required by the statutory dir......