R (on the application of Hindawi) v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] EWHC 830 (Admin), [2011] All ER (D) 08 (Apr)
In a case where there had been an oral hearing by the parole board, a very good reason was needed to depart from the findings of fact that had been made by the panel that had seen the witnesses. The secretary of state, when making a decision on parole, also had to distinguish between the findings of fact made by the panel and the assessment of risk. The findings of fact were the basis on which the secretary of state was entitled to reach his own view to determine risk, according appropriate respect to the views of the board on its assessment of risk.
Established principles that required appellate courts not to overturn findings of fact or on credibility without there being a good reason also applied to the secretary of state where he was the primary decision maker and where he had not seen the witnesses. Whether there were good reasons depended on whether circumstances permitted the secretary of state to undertake a
