This piece considers the decision of the Supreme Court in Osborn v The Parole Board, on the circumstances in which natural justice requires that prisoners be afforded an oral hearing before the Parole Board. It analyses the terms of that decision, and suggests that it demonstrates the difficulties faced by public bodies who attempt to provide the minimum degree of procedural fairness required by law - the common law's ongoing evolution makes this strategy problematic. It further considers the account offered by Lord Reed of the relationship between 'domestic' and human rights law, praising it for its attempt to return the common law grounds of review to the centre of public law and the light thereby shed on what might be gained, or not, from the repeal of the Human Rights Act.