On 25 August 2017, Hanna Legal represented our client at his appeal against the decision of the State Parole Authority to refuse him parole.

The appeal included a ground that the State Parole Authority had denied our client procedural fairness by refusing to allow our client to view or respond to secret intelligence tendered against him at his original parole hearing.

The appeal was successful and the Supreme Court ordered that our client was entitled to a new parole hearing and that he should at least be permitted to view the secret intelligence evidence in partially redacted form.

The Supreme Court also ordered that the State Parole Authority pay our client’s legal costs in relation to the appeal.

In one of the articles published about the appeal, the following extract appeared:

“[Nick] Hanna told BuzzFeed News: “While it is regrettable that the State Parole Authority made an error in Mr Sleiman’s case, we must acknowledge that it is put in a difficult position by law enforcement agencies that try to have it withhold important information from applicants. A fair hearing is only possible if both parties have access to all relevant information.

‘Police intelligence is often highly unreliable for a variety of reasons, and only if full disclosure is made can the material truly be tested.’”

For the full article, see: This Is How Evidence Is Being Held Back From Defence Lawyers In Parole Board Hearings, Buzzfeed News, 29 August 2017.