R (on the application of Youngsam) v Parole Board
[2019] EWCA Civ 229
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Facts:
Y recalled into custody twice for breaking licence agreements of parole.
Hearings pushed back and missed by the probation service.
Y seeking judicial review after Turner J (Trial Judge) decided that ECHR did not apply to the recall from parole in Y’s case.
Legal Facts / Procedural History:
Member Case Assessment
Oral Hearing (Parole Board)
Legal Issues:
Whether 5(4) of ECHR applied to determinate sentence prisoners who are recalled to prison following release on parole licence.
Whether there had been an unlawful delay in Y’s review.
Appellant (Youngsam) Arguments:
The precedent that Y was recalled under by the court was part of obiter, not the ratio. It should not have been applied to his case, but the trial judge used it as if it were authoritative.
The parole board took too long, which violates ECHR.
Respondent (Parole Board) Arguments:
Y did not fit into the correct definition required for 5(4) of ECHR, so it is not applicable. The recall to prison was not a new sentence, but part of the existing one. The lawfulness of the original sentence was already proven.
Judgement (Leggatt LJ, Haddon-Cave LJ and Davies LJ):
Held, appeal dismissed.
Davies LJ:
The court was bound by the other rulings as it formed part of the ratio. The parole board issues instructions to its employees on how long it should take to review cases, but this is not binding.
Leggatt LJ:
While the obiter of a higher court is not binding, it is strong persuasive authority. It would, however, create chaos if the obiter was used to formulate a ratio – should only be used to support an existing argument.
Comments