Karl Oakley, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 292 (Admin)
Adam Swellings, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice
5 April 2024
[2024] EWHC 771 (Admin)
High Court
A prisoner wanted to move to a less secure prison, and the Parole Board said yes. The government said no, explaining its concerns about the prisoner's risk. A court reviewed the government's decision and agreed that it was fair and reasonable, so the prisoner stayed in the more secure prison.
Key Facts
- •Adam Swellings (Claimant) challenged the Secretary of State for Justice's (Defendant) decision not to accept the Parole Board's recommendation to move him to open conditions.
- •Swellings was a pre-tariff life prisoner serving a life sentence for murder since 2008.
- •The Parole Board recommended the transfer to open conditions after an oral hearing in March 2022.
- •The Defendant rejected the recommendation, citing concerns about risk factors despite Swellings' positive progress.
- •The Claimant brought judicial review on three grounds: unlawful decision-making approach, inadequate reasoning, and irrationality due to failure to consider relevant factors.
Legal Principles
The Secretary of State must accord weight to the Parole Board's recommendations, but the weight depends on the issues, hearing type, findings, and risk assessment.
R (Green) v Secretary of State for Justice (No 2) [2023] EWHC 1211 (Admin)
On matters where the Parole Board has an advantage (fact-finding), the Secretary of State must give clear, cogent, and convincing reasons for departing.
R (Green) v Secretary of State for Justice (No 2) [2023] EWHC 1211 (Admin)
In risk assessment, the Secretary of State must respect the Parole Board's view but can be challenged only on conventional public law grounds (irrationality, unfairness, etc.).
R (Green) v Secretary of State for Justice (No 2) [2023] EWHC 1211 (Admin)
The Secretary of State may reject a Parole Board recommendation if there is not a wholly persuasive case for transfer to open conditions.
Generic Parole Process Policy Framework (GPPPF)
Outcomes
The claim was dismissed.
The Judge found the Defendant's approach was a legitimate risk assessment based on the Parole Board's findings, showing due deference to professional opinions. The reasons given for rejecting the recommendation were adequate and did not demonstrate irrationality.
Similar Cases
Steven Lee Draper, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 1892 (Admin)
Reuben Valentine, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 1534 (Admin)
Brendon Oxendale, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 2407 (Admin)
Zarak McKoy, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice
[2023] EWHC 3047 (Admin)