England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(ADMINISTRATIVE COURT)
(MR DAVID PANNICK QC)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL Friday 9 November 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE LATHAM: Mr Gledhill appears on behalf of this applicant to apply for permission to appeal a decision of Mr David Pannick QC, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court on 11 September 2001. In that decision he dismissed an application by the applicant for judicial review of a decision by the Parole Board of 27 April 2001, which recommended that the applicant be released to open conditions.
2. Before the deputy judge the focus of the argument appears to have been the extent to which that was a recommendation which the Parole Board was entitled to make under the statutory provisions, namely, section 29 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 and section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.
3. Neither before the deputy judge, nor before this court, is there any information which enables me to determine the request that was made of the Parole Board by the Secretary of State under section 29. Accordingly, it is not known whether, on the face of the documents, the Parole Board considered the question of release.
4. The applicant is a mandatory life sentence prisoner whose tariff has now expired. Mr Gledhill, on his behalf, submits that he had at least a legitimate expectation that his position as far as release was concerned would have been considered by the Parole Board in April of this year. On the basis of that argument (which does not appear to have been considered, at least the way the matter presented itself to the judge whatever may have been the arguments) I consider that permission should be granted. It is clearly important that this applicant's position should be clarified.
5. Anybody who is serving a life sentence is entitled to as much certainty as can be achieved as to the position regarding his release. It may be that time will overtake this particular appeal in that matters relating to his release will be considered. In my view, Mr Gledhill is right that that position can only be helped, and certainly not hindered, by granting permission to appeal.
6. There should be some expedition because this case has been expedited so far and I consider it should be expedited now.
Order: Permission to appeal granted. Expedition ordered. Case to be listed for 2 hours. Form 86 to be redrafted. (Order does not form part of approved judgment)