Not many cases (230 of them) have been added to the database so far. To see the full list of cases (2057) go to the Mental health case law page.
The relevant pages (and summaries) are displayed at the bottom of this page.
Choose a table:
- Cases (232)
- Contact (242)
- Events (357)
- Jobs (59)
- Legislation (125)
- News (426)
- Resources (305)
- All pages (8658)
Use the filters below to narrow your results.
Showing below up to 3 results in range #1 to #3.
|R (Gourlay) v Parole Board (2017) EWCA Civ 1003||
Costs against Parole Board
"Does the established practice of the High Court, to make no order for costs for or against an inferior tribunal or court which plays no active part in a judicial review of one of its decisions, extend to the [Parole] Board?"
|R (LV) v SSJ (2012) EWHC 3899 (Admin)||
MHT/Parole Board delay
"This is a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review challenging delay, it is said, on the part of the Secretary of State for Justice and the Parole Board in fixing a hearing of the Parole Board."
|R (LV) v SSJ (2014) EWHC 1495 (Admin)||
"In the light of authority, Mr Southey accepts that he cannot submit as a matter of principle that the system by which the Claimant's release was considered by two successive bodies, the Tribunal and the Parole Board, is in conflict with the Claimant's Article 5(4) rights. ... He goes on to argue that, on the facts as they are here, if there were to be two hearings before two bodies, the state had a legal obligation to ensure expedition throughout the overall process. He says there was no such expedition, since the review of the legality of the Claimant's detention took almost 22 months from the date when the Claimant applied to the Tribunal on 24 May 2011 to the decision of the Parole Board on 21 March 2013. Within that period, Mr Southey makes a series of specific complaints as to periods of delay. ... The claim for judicial review is dismissed as against both Defendants. ... Although it took a considerable time to be resolved, there was in my view no breach of the obligation on the part of the State to provide a 'speedy' resolution."