Abstract
In Roberts v Parole Board [2005] UKHL 45 (7 July 2005) the House of Lords was asked whether the legal procedure for parole of even the vilest criminals should remain transparent and accord with natural justice under domestic law and/or the European Convention on Human Rights. In powerfully persuasive dissents, Lord Bingham and Lord Steyn struck a powerful plea for human rights. Alas, the majority, Lord Woolf, Lord Rodger Earlsferry and Lord Carswell were the appeasers, echoing popular sentiment, well illustrated both in the UK and in this country by the hue and cry that follows the release of paedophiles into the community.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
