Massey, R (on the application of) v Parole Board of England and Wales & Anor

A hearing under Article 5(4) of the European Convention must be provided speedily, but the assessment is fact-sensitive. The court must allow reasonable time for preparation, including obtaining and considering necessary reports, while recognising the tribunal’s overall caseload. Complexity, the need for adequate evidence and the practical consequences of moving other cases may justify delay, provided the period remains reasonable. A decision on the time required for reports will generally be amenable to challenge only on conventional public law grounds, including irrationality. A six-month period was undesirable but, in the circumstances, did not breach the speedy-hearing requirement.

The claimant, a life prisoner released on licence, was recalled to custody after breaching curfew conditions and testing positive for cocaine. He applied to the Parole Board for an oral hearing. The hearing was listed approximately six months after his recall.

He sought judicial review, contending that the delay breached Article 5(4) of the European Convention and seeking declaratory relief, since an earlier hearing might have supported a later damages claim. The central issue was whether the Parole Board had failed to secure a speedy hearing in the circumstances.

1. Claim dismissed. Permission was granted on the rolled-up hearing, but the claim for judicial review was rejected. The costs order was not to be enforced without leave, and the usual order for detailed assessment applied.
2. Article 5(4) requires a speedy decision concerning detention. What is speedy depends on the circumstances of the individual case. A complicated case may properly take longer than a straightforward one. The court or tribunal must also accommodate its caseload, although any unavoidable interval must be kept to a reasonable minimum.
3. The period between receipt of the dossier and consideration by the judicial member was regrettable but was not unreasonable to the extent necessary to make it unlawful. The claimant could not show that the judicial member’s period for obtaining reports was irrational.
4. The Parole Board had to strike a proper balance. It needed sufficient time to obtain prison and probation reports, consider the risk posed by release, and allow the parties to respond. Some flexibility was required because reports might be delayed for good reason and would need to be assimilated before the hearing.
5. The earlier system considered in R (Cooper) v Parole Board [2007] EWHC 1292 (Admin) had produced unacceptable delays on the evidence then available. The present system of intensive case management was materially different and was said to have avoided those delays. The earlier decision therefore did not establish that the claimant’s hearing was unlawful.
6. Although six months was longer than desirable, the court could not conclude that the hearing had not been brought speedily. By the time of the hearing, advancing the date would have been impractical and could have caused further delay in another case.

First-instance judicial review in the Administrative Court. No appellate history was stated in the judgment.