R (Osborn) v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61
Court: Supreme Court
Facts: O, along with two other cases, had been released on licence after serving half of a six-year sentence. He was later recalled to prison when his licence was revoked on the grounds of breaching its conditions. The Secretary of State referred O’s case to the Parole Board under Section 255C of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. A paper panel, consisting of one member, declined to recommend his re-release. O requested an oral hearing, but this request was denied. He challenged this refusal, arguing that his rights under Article 5(4) of the ECHR necessitated an oral hearing. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal.
Issue: Was O entitled to an oral hearing under Article 5(4) of the ECHR?
Held: Appeals allowed; O (Osborn) was entitled to an oral hearing.
Key Judicial Statement: Lord Reed emphasized the need for procedural fairness, stating that:
"The guarantees set out in the substantive articles of the Convention... have to be fulfilled at national level through a substantial body of much more specific domestic law." 【55】
"The importance of the [Human Rights] Act is unquestionable... Human rights continue to be protected by our domestic law, interpreted and developed in accordance with the Act when appropriate." 【57】
He concluded that “the board should hold an oral hearing before determining an application for release... whenever fairness to the prisoner requires such a hearing in light of the facts of the case and the importance of what is at stake.” 【2】
Lord Reed noted that in O's case, the conditions for procedural fairness had not been met in the board's decision to deny him an oral hearing. 【97-100】
💡Leveluplaw: establishes the principle that an oral hearing may be necessary to ensure fairness in decisions affecting prisoners' rights under the ECHR. Lord Reed's emphasis on the interplay between the Human Rights Act and domestic law underscores the importance of procedural fairness in the context of parole decisions. The ruling reinforces the requirement for a more individualized assessment in cases where significant rights are at stake, promoting a more transparent and equitable judicial process.