Ahmad Shah, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 682 (Admin)
Anthony Clarke, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
24 July 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 861
Court of Appeal
A prisoner challenged decisions keeping him in a high-security prison. The court looked at whether the prison followed rules and was fair. It found the rules weren't broken, and it wasn't unfair to not have a hearing. The prisoner's appeal failed.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Clarke, a Category A life prisoner convicted of murder in 2008, challenged two decisions (Decision 1 and Decision 2) by the Category A Team (CART) to maintain his Category A status.
- •The CART decisions followed a recommendation by the Local Advisory Panel (LAP) and consideration of reports from a prison psychologist (Ms. McCraw) and an independent psychologist (Dr. Pratt), who had differing opinions on Clarke's risk level.
- •Clarke argued that the procedure was unfair because he wasn't given sufficient time to comment on the LAP's recommendation before Decision 1 and that an oral hearing should have been held.
- •The key dispute centered on whether the process complied with Prison Service Instruction 08/2013 (PSI) and whether common law fairness required an oral hearing.
Legal Principles
Procedural fairness in decisions affecting prisoners' security categorization. The court must balance the public interest and the prisoner's individual interests. Oral hearings are not always required.
R (Osborn) v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61; [2014] AC 1115, R (Mackay) v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] EWCA Civ 522, R (Downs) v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] EWCA Civ 1422, R (Hassett) v Secretary of State for Justice [2017] EWCA Civ 331; [2017] 1 WLR 4750
Interpretation of Prison Service Instruction 08/2013 (PSI). The PSI distinguishes between mandatory instructions (italicized text, using 'must') and guidelines (plain text). Compliance requires adherence to mandatory instructions and consideration of guidelines.
Prison Service Instruction 08/2013
The court's role is to determine whether a decision was unfair, not simply unreasonable or irrational. The need for an oral hearing is determined by the facts of the case, and no single factor is decisive.
R (Mackay) v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] EWCA Civ 522
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The court found that the CART complied with the PSI and acted fairly. The PSI did not require prior comment on the LAP's recommendation, and the factors cited by Clarke did not necessitate an oral hearing under common law fairness principles. The high threshold for recategorization to a lower security category weighs against the necessity for an oral hearing.
Similar Cases
Thomas Green, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2023] EWHC 626 (Admin)
Colin Gunn v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 686 (Admin)
Omar Khyam, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2023] EWHC 160 (Admin)
Paul Somers, R (on the application of) v Parole Board for England and Wales
[2023] EWHC 1160 (Admin)