Parole board's disclosure powers questioned in Abdallah case

Background of the Case

The High Court of Justice recently deliberated on a pivotal case concerning the Parole Board's authority to disclose sensitive material to a Special Advocate. The case, brought by the Secretary of State for Justice, sought to quash a Parole Board decision involving Mr Abdal Raouf Abdallah, a convicted terrorist offender.

Substantive Proceedings

Mr Abdallah was convicted of terrorism offences in 2016 and sentenced to an extended determinate sentence. After being released on licence, he was recalled to custody in 2021. His case was referred to the Parole Board under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and the Secretary of State applied to withhold certain material from Mr Abdallah and his legal representative.

Parole Board's Decision

In October 2023, the Duty Member of the Parole Board directed that the contested material be served on the Special Advocate. The Secretary of State challenged this decision, arguing it was beyond the Board's power to disclose material to the Special Advocate without first determining its relevance.

Legal Arguments

The Secretary of State's challenge was based on two grounds: first, that the Parole Board acted ultra vires by ordering disclosure before assessing relevance; second, that the Duty Member improperly exercised discretion in making the disclosure order.

Judicial Review

The High Court examined whether the Parole Board's decision was within its powers and whether the Duty Member erred in discretion. The court noted that the issue had become academic as Mr Abdallah had completed his sentence and was released.

Court's Decision

The High Court ultimately declined to rule on the substantive issues, citing the absence of exceptional circumstances that would justify resolving an academic dispute. The court emphasised the need for judicial review to be purposeful and not to engage in academic exercises.

Implications

This case highlights the complexities surrounding the Parole Board's case management powers and the role of Special Advocates. The decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness in parole proceedings, especially involving sensitive material.

Conclusion

While the High Court did not resolve the legal questions posed, the case serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between national security and procedural fairness in the parole system. It also illustrates the challenges courts face in addressing academic issues.

Learn More

For more information on the legal framework governing parole proceedings, see BeCivil's guide to UK Employment Law.

Copyright & permissions