header-logo header-logo

02 September 2020
Issue: 7900 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Profession
printer mail-detail

Mother refused permission to bring judicial review

The High Court has refused permission for a mother to bring a judicial review against a Parole Board decision to release her daughter’s murderer even though he still refuses to reveal where he hid her body

Mary McCourt is the mother of Helen McCourt, who was murdered in 1988 at the age of 22 by Ian Simms. He was released in February, almost 31 years after his conviction.

The mother has campaigned for a change in the law to prevent the release of those who are convicted of murder but will not reveal the whereabouts of their victim’s remains. This resulted in the Prisoners (Disclosure of Information about Victims) Bill, which has received its second reading in the House of Lords but is not yet law.

In R (McCourt) v Parole Board [2020] EWHC 2320 (Admin), Mary McCourt contended that the Board misdirected itself as to the test to be applied, failed to undertake reasonable inquiries and failed to challenge Simms about his denials, reached irrational conclusions, and acted in a way that was procedurally unfair.

Simms disputed Mary McCourt’s standing to bring the claim and submitted that the Board’s decision involved no public law error.

The court held that Mary McCourt did have ‘sufficient interest’ in, and therefore standing to bring, the case.

Its judgment stated: ‘One of the issues before the Parole Board was whether his refusal to reveal the whereabouts of her remains was motivated by a desire to exert psychological control over the remaining family members.

‘In those circumstances, it would in our view be inappropriate to make the possibility of a challenge to a Parole Board decision dependent upon a decision of the Secretary of State to bring judicial review proceedings.’

However, the court concluded that the Board’s decision ‘involved no arguable public law error’, therefore permission was denied.

Issue: 7900 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll