Human rights

(1) An oral hearing was not always necessary where an assessment of dangerousness was being undertaken by the parole board on the basis of personality and maturity. It depended on the circumstances, including the information already available from previous assessments. The board was not prohibited from taking into account its own judgment on the basis of the material available to it and to consider whether there was a realistic prospect of that being affected by an oral hearing. The emphasis was on the utility of the oral procedure in assisting in the resolution of the issues before the decision-maker. There was no suggestion that an oral hearing was necessary even where the decision-maker was able fairly to conclude, having regard to the material before it and the issues in play, that an oral hearing could realistically make no difference to its decision.

(2) It was desirable that tribunals should record in brief form what it was in the materials that led them