R (Osborn) v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61

Facts

• O was released from prison on licence but was recalled for breaching licence conditions.
• The Parole Board, acting through a single-member paper panel, refused to recommend O’s re-release without holding an oral hearing.
• O challenged the Parole Board’s decision, asserting that Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) entitled him to an oral hearing to determine the lawfulness of his detention.
• The Court of Appeal dismissed O’s appeal, but the Supreme Court reversed this decision.
• The Supreme Court’s judgment, mainly delivered by Lord Reed, clarified the requirements of procedural fairness in parole decisions.

Issues

1. Whether the Parole Board is required to provide an oral hearing when determining an application for release or open conditions, in order to satisfy procedural fairness.
2. Whether Article 5(4) ECHR necessitates an oral hearing in parole proceedings where the fairness of the process so demands.
3. How procedural fairness, as a principle of administrative law, applies to the Parole Board’s decision-making process.

Decision

• The Supreme Court concluded the Parole Board must hold an oral hearing before deciding on release or transfer to open conditions when fairness requires it.
• The Court emphasized that a blanket refusal or a formulaic approach to hearings is not acceptable; each case must be evaluated individually.
• It was determined the board had failed to properly consider the necessity of an oral hearing based on the facts and what was at stake.
• The Human Rights Act 1998 was interpreted as requiring domestic law to align substantively with ECHR protections; procedural fairness is entrenched within this framework.
• The Supreme Court articulated thirteen key principles regarding procedural fairness in parole and analogous proceedings.

Legal Principles

• Procedural fairness includes the right to be heard, to present evidence, and to receive a reasoned decision by an impartial tribunal.
• Article 5(4) ECHR requires that the lawfulness of a detention be determined with adequate procedural safeguards, including the possibility of an oral hearing when fairness so requires.
• The Human Rights Act 1998 does not establish distinct rights, but requires domestic law to comply with ECHR principles.
• Fairness is contextual; decision-makers must consider the specific circumstances and the importance of what is at stake, rather than apply rigid rules.
• A formulaic or mechanical decision process fails to satisfy procedural fairness obligations.
• The decision affirms that procedural fairness may require oral hearings to comply with both domestic common law and Convention rights.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court determined that procedural fairness may require the Parole Board to provide an oral hearing in parole reviews where the circumstances and potential consequences demand it, ensuring compliance with Article 5(4) ECHR and embedding substantive human rights standards into domestic administrative decision-making.