Roberts v Parole Board [2005] UKHL 45

House of Lords

Facts: Roberts challenged the Parole Board’s decision to withhold evidence from him during a "closed" hearing about his release on license. The issue was whether the use of special advocates sufficiently protected Roberts’s rights.

Held: The House of Lords found that the use of special advocates could enhance the prisoner’s rights, but the dissenting minority argued that access to an adversarial hearing could only be restricted by explicit statutory authorization.

Judicial Statement: Lord Bingham stated that while special advocates improve the fairness of the process, any restriction on adversarial rights must be explicitly authorized by statute.