R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Doody [1993] UKHL 8
Citation:R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Doody [1993] UKHL 8
Rule of thumb:Do parole boards in prisons have to provide reasons for their decisions on whether to give early release etc? Yes, for important decisions related to parole and early release, parole boards are required to provide clear reasons for their decisions.
Background facts:
The basic facts of this case were that 4 prisoners had completed minimum sentences for murder. After undergoing parole they were released, but no reasons were provided to them for this.
Judgment:
The Court held that although there is not a general duty to give reasons, this was an example where there was a duty to give reasons – in serious cases where prisoners who have committed significant fines are released then reasons for their release should be provided. The Court affirmed that when there is a duty to provide will vary according to the seriousness of the circumstances.
Ratio-decidendi:
‘What does fairness require in the present case? My Lords, I think it unnecessary to refer by name or to quote from, any of the often-cited authorities in which the courts have explained what is essentially an intuitive judgment. They are far too well known. From them, I derive that:- Where an Act of Parliament confers an administrative power there is a presumption that it will be exercised in a manner which is fair in all the circumstances. The standards of fairness are not immutable. They may change with the passage of time, both in the general and in their application to decisions of a particular type. The principles of fairness are not to be applied by rote identically in every situation. What fairness demands is dependent on the context of the decision, and this is to be taken into account in all its aspects. An essential feature of the context is the statute which creates the discretion, as regards both its language and the shape of the legal and administrative system within which the decision is taken. Fairness will very often require that a person who may be adversely affected by the decision will have an opportunity to make representations on his own behalf either before the decision is taken with a view to producing a favourable result; or after it is taken, with a view to procuring its modification; or both. Since the person affected usually cannot make worthwhile representations without knowing what factors may weigh against his interests fairness will very often require that he is informed of the gist of the case which he has to answer’, Lord Mustill
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.