Following Jonathan’s reconsideration representations, the Parole Board found the Parole Board’s decision to conclude our client’s case on the papers to be both unlawful and procedurally unfair.  [2024] PBRA 159

AR is a life sentence prisoner who was recalled into custody in 2022. His minimum tariff expired in 2001. Due to English being AR’s third language, previous Parole directions had accepted the need for a translator and interpreter to assist AR throughout his hearing. However, after AR’s case was adjourned to seek further information, the Parole Board proceeded with a hearing without an interpreter and without clarifying AR’s understanding of the evidence or procedure he was undergoing.

After the Parole Board failed to question AR on his view of the recall, and proposed concluding on the papers, AR’s previous solicitors failed to take his instructions and accepted the Parole Board’s untested view that AR’s case should be concluded on the papers to complete further work, despite it being evident that AR was not advised of the implications of this.

The Parole Board accepted Jonathan’s representations in full and directed AR’s case for an expedited oral hearing having found the decision unlawful and procedurally unfair.