Osborn v The Parole Board · [2013] UKSC 61
UK Supreme Court · 9 October 2013
Three prisoners asked for hearings after decisions on the papers went against them. In each case lawyers identified something they wanted the decision-maker to hear. The requests were refused. The question for the Supreme Court was whether those refusals were fair, even if release appeared unlikely.
What a written file can leave out
Mr Osborn disputed aspects of the account that led to his recall. In another of the appeals, evidence from a psychiatrist could have helped the assessment of risk. A panel reading reports has fewer ways to probe an apparent contradiction, hear an explanation or ask how a risk might be managed.
The court held that fairness required oral hearings in these three cases. It examined the common law duty to act fairly and Article 5(4) of the Convention. A person’s opportunity to take part in a decision affecting liberty was valuable in its own right. A prediction that the panel would probably reach the same conclusion could not settle the procedural question.
How to frame a request
Identify the precise finding that is disputed. Give the paragraph in the report, who could speak to it and what a question might clarify. If the concern is future risk, explain which proposed safeguard needs testing. That gives the decision-maker a concrete reason to hear a witness. The judgments secured the right to a fair process for these appellants. They did not order their release or establish an automatic oral hearing in every review.
Read the judgment in Osborn v The Parole Board
Related reading · Access to a tribunal in UNISON
