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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll