## Facts

- The Supreme Court considered the procedures employed by the Parole Board in determining whether prisoners should be released, particularly focusing on the granting of oral hearings.
- Prior to this judgment, the Parole Board exercised broad discretion to decide when to hold oral hearings for prisoners seeking release.
- The prisoners in question argued that the lack of an oral hearing undermined procedural fairness and their ability to present arguments effectively.
- The application of Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to liberty and security, was central to the appeal.
- The Supreme Court examined the nature of the decision-making process, including the complexity of the issues and the importance of effective participation for the individuals involved.

## Issues

1. Whether the Parole Board’s discretion in granting oral hearings satisfies the requirements of procedural fairness.
2. Whether the failure to hold oral hearings in certain cases amounts to a breach of Article 5(4) ECHR.
3. What factors must be considered in determining the need for an oral hearing to ensure a fair process.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held that procedural fairness requires the Parole Board to grant oral hearings where fairness so demands.
- The Court determined that the right to a fair process extends beyond mere compliance with legal requirements and must provide meaningful opportunities to present and challenge evidence.
- The judgment clarified that failure to hold oral hearings, in circumstances requiring them for fairness, could breach Article 5(4) ECHR even if the eventual decision is correct.
- The Parole Board is obliged to assess the complexity of the case, disputed facts, and the prisoner's circumstances when deciding whether an oral hearing is needed.
- The Parole Board subsequently revised its procedures to provide clearer guidance and greater transparency regarding oral hearings.

## Legal Principles

- Procedural fairness requires that administrative decisions affecting fundamental rights, such as liberty, are reached through a fair and transparent process.
- The duty to conduct oral hearings is not solely discretionary; it is a requirement where fairness demands, informed by the principles of natural justice.
- Article 5(4) ECHR may be breached by the absence of a fair hearing process, regardless of the substantive correctness of the outcome.
- The principles identified are applicable across other domains of administrative law where decisions impact individual rights.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Osborn v Parole Board established that procedural fairness in parole decisions necessitates oral hearings when required by fairness, significantly strengthening the procedural protections under Article 5(4) ECHR and shaping administrative practices across a range of contexts.

Osborn v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61