Shane Wylie, R (on the application of) v Parole Board for England and Wales
[2024] EWHC 52 (Admin)
Shane Wylie, R (on the application of) v Parole Board for England and Wales (Costs)
8 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 728 (Admin)
High Court
A prisoner challenged the Parole Board for not giving him a hearing. The court initially sided with the prisoner, but then the Parole Board gave him a hearing, making the initial problem go away. The prisoner then wanted the Parole Board to pay his legal fees, but the judge decided the Parole Board hadn't been unreasonable enough to have to pay, considering the circumstances.
Key Facts
- •The claimant, Shane Wylie, challenged the Parole Board's refusal to grant him an oral hearing for his parole application.
- •The court initially ruled in favour of the claimant, finding the Parole Board's decision procedurally unfair.
- •However, the Parole Board subsequently granted the oral hearing, rendering the initial decision moot.
- •The claimant sought costs against the Parole Board, arguing their unreasonable refusal to agree to a consent order.
- •The Parole Board applied to set aside the costs order.
- •The main legal issue was the appropriate test for awarding costs against the Parole Board in such circumstances.
Legal Principles
The general principle is that costs are not awarded against a judicial body like the Parole Board unless it acted improperly or unreasonably, or actively participated in the proceedings.
R (Davies) v Birmingham Deputy Coroner [2004] 1 WLR 2739; R (Gourlay) v Parole Board [2017] 1 WLR 4107; R (Faqiri) v Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) [2019] 1 WLR 4497
The test for unreasonableness is not necessarily the high threshold of Wednesbury unreasonableness. A lower threshold of unreasonableness, where no other reasonable board would have acted in the same way, can suffice.
R (Somers) v Parole Board [2023] EWHC 2967 (Admin) (Costs)
The court has a residual discretion in awarding costs, guided by principles established by higher courts but not strictly bound by them.
R (Gourlay) v Parole Board [2020] 1 WLR 5344
Outcomes
The court set aside the initial costs order against the Parole Board.
The Parole Board's refusal to agree to a consent order was not deemed unreasonable in the circumstances, considering the ongoing police investigation against the claimant at the time of the original decision.
The order for assessment of the claimant's publicly funded costs remained.
This is a separate matter from the determination of costs against the Parole Board itself.
Similar Cases
Kyle Parvez, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 653 (Admin)
Michael Chiswick, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1223 (Admin)
John Dawes, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board for England & Wales
[2024] EWHC 2691 (Admin)
Neil Garmson, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board for England and Wales
[2024] EWHC 1106 (Admin)