Shane Wylie, R (on the application of) v Parole Board for England and Wales (Costs)
[2024] EWHC 728 (Admin)
Shane Wylie, R (on the application of) v Parole Board for England and Wales
12 January 2024
[2024] EWHC 52 (Admin)
High Court
A prisoner, Shane Wylie, was denied an oral hearing for his parole. The judge said the Parole Board didn't fairly consider all the information, especially about a new accusation that was later dropped. The judge ruled the Parole Board was unfair but didn't overturn the decision because a new parole hearing was already happening, where he *did* get an oral hearing.
Key Facts
- •Shane Wylie, serving a 14-year sentence for rape, challenged the Parole Board's refusal of an oral hearing for his parole application.
- •His licence was revoked following a complaint of malicious communication, later withdrawn due to insufficient evidence.
- •A new rape allegation against Wylie was under investigation during the Parole Board's review.
- •The Parole Board initially refused an oral hearing, citing the ongoing investigation and policy guidelines.
- •Wylie's legal team argued procedural unfairness, based on the *R (Osborn) v Parole Board* case, highlighting disputed facts and the need for a fair risk assessment.
- •The police ultimately dropped the new rape allegation.
Legal Principles
Procedural fairness in Parole Board hearings; necessity of oral hearings in certain circumstances.
R (Osborn) v Parole Board [2014] UKSC 61
The Parole Board's duty to act fairly, influenced by Article 5(4) ECHR.
R (Osborn) v Parole Board [2014] UKSC 61
Parole Board Rules 2019 (SI 2018/1038), specifically Rule 6 (adjournment) and Rule 19 (oral hearings).
Parole Board Rules 2019
Guidance on adjournments and deferrals in Parole Board proceedings.
Defendant's guidance 'Adjournments and deferrals'
Outcomes
The court declared the Parole Board's decision of 11 November 2022 to be procedurally unfair.
The Parole Board failed to adequately address disputed facts (the status of the rape allegation), the need for a proper risk assessment considering Wylie's non-accredited but significant work on offending behaviour, and the overall principle of fairness as outlined in *R (Osborn) v Parole Board*.
The court granted a declaration of procedural unfairness rather than quashing the decision, due to subsequent material changes in circumstances (the dropping of the rape allegation) and the ongoing Parole Board review.
The court deemed a declaration sufficient given the changed circumstances and the pending review, where an oral hearing was eventually granted.
The Parole Board was ordered to pay the claimant's costs.
Standard basis, to be assessed if not agreed.
Similar Cases
Dominic McKilligan v Parole Board for England and Wales
[2024] EWHC 336 (Admin)
Ezekel Taylor, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board for England and Wales
[2024] EWHC 1363 (Admin)
Paul Somers, R (on the application of) v Parole Board for England and Wales
[2023] EWHC 1160 (Admin)
Neil Garmson, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board for England and Wales
[2024] EWHC 1106 (Admin)