Russell McPhee, R (on the application) v The Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 1247 (Admin)
Abdul Khalisadar, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
24 September 2024
[2024] EWHC 2408 (Admin)
High Court
A prisoner's parole board wanted him moved to a less secure prison. The government said no. A judge said the government didn't give good enough reasons for saying no, so they have to reconsider.
Key Facts
- •Abdul Khalisadar, a 43-year-old prisoner at HMP Ashfield, serving an Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence with an 18-month tariff (expiring July 4, 2014), had his case referred to the Parole Board.
- •The Parole Board recommended transfer to open conditions but not release.
- •The Secretary of State rejected the Parole Board's recommendation.
- •The claimant sought judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision.
Legal Principles
The Secretary of State's decision on transferring a prisoner to open conditions is not bound by the Parole Board's recommendation but must be rational and consider the Parole Board's reasoning with appropriate respect.
Various cases cited, including R (Green) v Secretary of State for Justice (No. 2) [2023] EWHC 1211 (Admin), R (Overton) v Secretary of State for Justice [2023] EWHC 3071 (Admin), and R (Hindawi) v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] EWHC 830 (QB).
The Secretary of State must follow applicable policy (here, the Generic Parole Process Policy Framework) or provide good reasons for departure. The test for review is rationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness), with 'anxious scrutiny' applied due to the liberty interest involved.
R (Hahn) v Secretary of State for Justice [2024] EWHC 1559 (Admin); Browne v The Parole Board of England and Wales [2018] EWCA Civ 2024.
When disagreeing with the Parole Board, the Secretary of State must provide sufficient justification, engaging meaningfully with the Parole Board's findings and reasoning. The weight given to the Parole Board's recommendation depends on the issue and the Parole Board's expertise.
R (Zenshen) v Secretary of State for Justice [2023] EWHC 2279 (Admin); R (Kumar) v Secretary of State for Justice [2019] EWHC 444 (Admin).
Outcomes
The Secretary of State's decision was quashed.
The court found the Secretary of State's decision irrational because it did not engage with the Parole Board's assessment of risk and cherry-picked adverse information without addressing contrary evidence. The Secretary of State failed to adequately engage with the Parole Board's detailed reasoning and conclusions, particularly concerning the expert evidence.
The matter was remitted to the Secretary of State for a new decision within 28 days.
The court determined that a rational justification for rejecting the Parole Board's recommendation was not provided. The Secretary of State's decision lacked meaningful engagement with the risk assessment and failed to address the Parole Board's thorough examination of the evidence.
Similar Cases
Mark Messenger v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 2463 (Admin)
Sean Allen, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 2370 (Admin)
Jonathan Andrew Williams, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 2144 (Admin)
Brendon Oxendale, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 2407 (Admin)