Key Facts
- •Two conjoined appeals concerned the Secretary of State for Justice's (SoS) power to transfer prisoners to open prison conditions under s. 12(2) of the Prison Act 1952.
- •The SoS can seek advice from the Parole Board (Board), but is not obliged to do so.
- •In both appeals, the SoS rejected the Board's advice on prisoner transfers.
- •Lower courts applied differing approaches to the circumstances in which the SoS can reject the Board's recommendations.
- •The appeals raised questions about the correct approach to the SoS's consideration of the Board's advice.
Legal Principles
The SoS is the sole decision-maker regarding prisoner transfers to open conditions; the Board provides advice only.
Prison Act 1952, s. 12(2); Criminal Justice Act 2003, s. 239(2), (6)
The SoS's decision is reviewable on the grounds of irrationality (unreasonableness). The test is whether the decision was outside the range of reasonable decisions or if there's a demonstrable flaw in reasoning.
Judicial review principles; R (Law Society) v Lord Chancellor [2018] EWHC 2094 (Admin)
The weight the SoS should give to the Board's advice depends on the Board's expertise and advantage regarding specific issues. Greater Board advantage warrants greater deference to its advice.
Various first-instance decisions; Gilbert [2015] EWCA Civ 802; Banfield [2007] EWHC 2605 (Admin)
The SoS doesn't need to identify a deficiency in the Board's reasoning to reject its advice; the rationality of the SoS's decision, not the Board's recommendation, is the focus.
Various first-instance decisions; Gilbert [2015] EWCA Civ 802
Outcomes
Appeal in Sneddon allowed (though academic as the SoS subsequently agreed to the transfer).
The SoS's decision was not irrational; he considered the Board's advice but gave greater weight to other factors within his expertise, such as impression management and risk-taking behaviour.
Appeal in Oakley 2 dismissed.
The SoS's decision was rational. His requirement for Mr. Oakley to complete a Stalking Risk Profile (SRP) before transfer was reasonable, considering the evidence and his expertise in prison management and resource allocation.