Kyle Parvez, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice [2024] EWHC 653 (Admin)
[2]1. I am grateful to both Counsel for their clear and focused written and oral submissions. Ms Sullivan for the SSJ has undoubtedly demonstrated an arguable defence, but she has not, in my judgment, delivered a clean knock-out blow. Permission for judicial review was refused by a Judge on the papers , but I have had the function of needing to consider the question of arguability for myself, afresh. I have had the very distinct advantage that an oral hearing brings, including the ability directly to engage with both Counsel in relation to the crux and substance of the case, to stress test arguability. Mr Buckley has persuaded me that this claim for judicial review crosses the threshold of arguability with a realistic prospect of success. That is all that I have decided. I will grant permission for judicial review and set aside the costs order that was made on the papers when permission was refused.