Reilly’s (James Clyde) Application
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Coghlin LJ |
| Judgment Date | 06 April 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] NICA 6 |
| Year | 2011 |
| Date | 06 April 2011 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
1
Neutral Citation No. [2011] NICA 6 Ref:
COG8105
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
6/4/11
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN HER MAJESTY’S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
Reilly’s (James Clyde) Application [2011] NICA 6
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
BY JAMES CLYDE REILLY
AND IN THE MATTER OF A DECISION BY THE PAROLE BOARD
ON 28 JULY 2009
_______
Before: Higgins LJ, Coghlin LJ, The Rt Hon Sir Anthony Campbell
_______
COGHLIN LJ (delivering the judgment of the court)
[1] This case concerns an appeal by the Parole Board and the Secretary of
State for Justice (“the Secretary of State”) from a decision of Treacy J delivered
on 13 April 2010 that the decision of the Parole Board (“the Board”) dated
20 July 2009 not to grant the respondent an oral hearing should be quashed on
the ground that it violated Article 5(4) of the European Convention on
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) and common
law and a further decision relating to consequential remedies to be afforded
to the respondent delivered by the same learned trial judge on 10 May 2010.
For the purposes of this appeal Mr Jason Coppel appeared for the appellants
while the respondent was represented by Mr Macdonald QC and Mr Hutton.
The court is grateful to all counsel concerned for their exhaustive research and
the clarity of their oral and written submissions.
Background facts
[2] The respondent, who is now 42 years of age, was remanded in custody
on charges of robbery, attempted robbery and possession of an imitation
firearm on 28 March 2002. He was subsequently convicted and sentenced, on
28 January 2003, to an automatic sentence of life imprisonment with a tariff of
six years and eight months. His tariff expiry date was calculated as being
20 September 2009.
[3] The offences of which the respondent was convicted concerned the
attempted robbery of a post office in St John’s Wood, North West London on
2
26 March 2002 and, on the same date, shortly thereafter, the robbery of a post
office in Hampstead High Street, North West London. The respondent has 19
previous convictions including two previous convictions for robbery. The
respondent was born in Northern Ireland and, while he was initially
imprisoned in various institutions in England and Wales, on 12 December
2007 he was transferred to HMP Maghaberry as a consequence of an order by
the Secretary of State made in accordance with paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to
the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (“the 1997 Act”). That transfer was a
restricted transfer subject to a condition that the respondent was to be treated
for the relevant purposes as if he remained subject to the provisions
applicable for those purposes under the law of the place from which the
transfer was made, namely, England and Wales, in accordance with Part II
paragraph 6 of the same schedule. By virtue of paragraph 6(2)(b) “the
relevant purposes” include the purposes of his detention under and release
from his sentence and, where applicable, the purposes of his supervision and
possible recall following release.
[4] In December 2006, prior to his transfer to Northern Ireland, a pre-tariff
expiry review of the respondent’s case was carried out by the Parole Board for
the purpose of considering the suitability of a move to open conditions and
identifying any areas of concern to be tackled or resolved before the next
review. The Parole Board did not recommend the respondent’s transfer to
open prison conditions noting that the respondent had exhibited regular
problematic behaviour, that there was a long list of unaddressed risk factors
and that he had taken part in very little offending behaviour work. A
covering letter from the National Offender Management Service (“NOMS”)
confirmed that the respondent should remain in closed conditions and that
his next review by the Parole Board would take place in September 2009. The
following reasons were specified:
“
• To show a sustained period of good behaviour
• To remain adjudication free
• To undertake work on drug relapse prevention
e.g. RAPT
• To undertake the cognitive self-change
programme, victim awareness and the
enhanced thinking skills course
• To undertake offending behaviour work on all
relevant risk factors.”
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
4 cases
- R (on the application of Pathan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
-
Booth v Parole Board
...Lady Hale, Deputy President Lord Kerr Lord Clarke Lord Reed THE SUPREME COURT Michaelmas Term On appeal from: [2010] EWCA Civ 1409; [2011] NICA 6 Appellant (Osborn) Respondent Hugh Southey Vijay Jagadesham (Instructed by Ison Harrison Solicitors) Appellant (Booth) Hugh Southey QC Vijay Ja......
-
TCM’s Application
... ... [41] This carries echoes of Lord Clyde in Reid v Secretary of State for Scotland [1999] 1 AER 481 at p. 500 when he said at page 506B et ... ...
-
Shiva Ltd v Sharon Boyd (One of HM Inspectors of Health and Safety)
...are not irrational, unlawful nor wholly unreasonable”. In the case of the appellant Reilly, the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland stated [2012] NI 38, para 42: “Ultimately the question whether procedural fairness requires their deliberations to include an oral hearing must be a matter of ......
1 books & journal articles
-
Northern Ireland Dimensions to the First Decade of the United Kingdom Supreme Court
...term used by Morgan LCJ in the Court of Appeal, ibid at [16].92 Under the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, s 28.93 [2010] NIQB 46 and 56.94 [2011] NICA 6 per Higgins and Coghlin LJ, and Sir Anthony Campbell; Coghlin LJ deliveredthe judgment of the court. They followed Osborn and Booth vParole Bo......