IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Sitting at:
Leeds Combined Court
1 Oxford Row
Leeds
West Yorkshire
LS1 3BG
Date: : Friday 19th March 2010
Before:
MR JUSTICE LANGSTAFF
Between:
MICHAEL OSBOURNE | Claimant |
- and - | |
PAROLE BOARD | Defendant |
(DAR Transcript of
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7404 1424
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr Jagadesham appeared on behalf of the Claimant.
The Defendant did not appear and was not represented.
Judgment
MR JUSTICE LANGSTAFF:
For the reasons which are set out in the judgment which I now hand down this application is dismissed. I have received written submissions asking for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. I decline to grant permission. I shall say something about the reasons for permission which are advanced by Mr Jagadesham on behalf of Mr Osbourne and why it seems to me that they do not give rise to any reasonable prospect of success nor display any other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.
First, it is argued that the judgment is to the effect that oral hearings will not be required in every or most cases. This is a misreading of what is said in the judgment, at paragraph 6, at paragraph 31 and, to make it completely clear, at paragraph 37. I have expressed my reservations about the approach of Cranston J from whose decision in R(H) v SSJ 2008] EWHC 2590 (Admin) the phrase was derived. It needs to be clearly understood that it is not my view that that approach is particularly helpful. It follows that an application for leave to appeal on that basis is misconceived.
As to mental health, the grounds of leave to appeal seek to re-argue the hearing. The application characterises the judgment of the court as being inconsistent with the House of Lords in Smith and West v Parole Board [2005] UKHL 1 and with that of the European Court in Waite. It is neither. It is entirely consistent with them and indeed was guided by those cases and the consideration of them by Latham LJ in R(Brooke, O’Connell and another) v Parole Board[2008] EWCA Civ 29.
For those reasons the application is dismissed.