Adrian John Bailey & Anor., R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice & Anor.
[2023] EWHC 1438 (KB)
Adrian John Bailey & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
15 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 555 (Admin)
High Court
The government tried to stop prison staff from giving their opinions on whether prisoners should be released. A court said that was wrong because it stops the Parole Board from doing its job properly and also because the government's instructions to staff were bad and misleading.
Key Facts
- •The Secretary of State for Justice amended Parole Board rules to prohibit HMPPS staff from including views on prisoner release suitability in their reports.
- •Claimants, prisoners serving indeterminate sentences, challenged the rule change and accompanying guidance.
- •The July Guidance instructed HMPPS staff not to express views on release suitability, even when directed by the Parole Board.
- •The July Guidance was revoked and replaced with the October Guidance, but staff were not informed of the July Guidance's unlawfulness.
- •The claimants argued the rule change unlawfully interfered with the Parole Board's independence and judicial functions.
Legal Principles
The Parole Board, while funded by the Ministry of Justice, is an independent body with judicial functions.
Common law and Article 5(4) ECHR
The Secretary of State must not undermine the Parole Board's independence or interfere with its judicial responsibilities.
Common law and Article 5(4) ECHR
Statutory powers must be exercised in accordance with the objects of the statute.
Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997
Judicial bodies have inherent jurisdiction to establish their own procedures.
R (Brooke) v Parole Board [2008] 1 WLR 1950
The Parole Board's directions are binding unless varied or set aside.
R (Majera) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 46
Guidance is unlawful if it contains positive statements of law that are wrong and induce breaches of legal duty.
R (A) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 37
Outcomes
Rule 2(22) is unlawful because its purpose was to suppress evidence conflicting with the Secretary of State's view.
This constituted an improper interference with the Parole Board's judicial process.
The July and October Guidance are unlawful.
They misstated the law and induced HMPPS staff to breach their legal obligations.
The Secretary of State's failure to consult was not unlawful.
There was no statutory obligation to consult, and no sufficiently consistent practice of doing so.
Similar Cases
Michael Chiswick, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1223 (Admin)
Abdul Khalisadar, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 2408 (Admin)
Scott Newson, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice
[2022] EWHC 2836 (Admin)
Sean Allen, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 2370 (Admin)