Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Cain, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice

29 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 426 (Admin)
High Court
A prisoner wanted to move to an open prison, and the Parole Board agreed. But the government said no, preferring a different program first. The judge decided the government's decision was reasonable because they explained their reasons clearly and there was no unfairness. The government's choice wasn't about ignoring facts but about making a different judgment call on what's best for the prisoner and public safety.

Key Facts

  • •Mr. Cain, a life sentence prisoner convicted of two murders, challenged the Secretary of State's refusal to accept the Parole Board's recommendation for his transfer to open conditions.
  • •The Parole Board, having heard evidence from two psychologists, concluded that open conditions were essential for informing future release decisions and preparing for community release.
  • •The Secretary of State rejected the Parole Board's conclusion, citing the potential benefits of a Progression Regime in closed conditions.
  • •Mr. Cain argued that the Secretary of State's decision was irrational, failed to consider relevant factors (including oral evidence at the Parole Board hearing), breached the Tameside duty, and was unfair.

Legal Principles

When assessing the lawfulness of departing from a Parole Board recommendation, the court must determine if the Parole Board had a particular advantage (requiring very good reason for departure) or if it involved a judgment balancing private and public interests (allowing the Secretary of State to differ, with reasons).

R (Oakley) v SSJ [2022] EWHC 2602 (Admin)

The Secretary of State's obligation is to take such steps to inform themselves as are reasonable. Intervention is only justified if no reasonable Secretary of State could have been satisfied with the inquiries made.

R (Balajigari) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] 1 WLR 4647

The essentiality test for open conditions considers whether time in open conditions is needed before the risk posed by the prisoner can be safely managed and the prisoner can cope with community life, as well as the stage of the prisoner's progress and whether further risk reduction work can be done as effectively in open conditions as in closed conditions.

R (Overton) v SSJ [2023] EWHC 3071 (Admin)

Outcomes

The claim failed. The court found none of Mr. Cain's grounds for judicial review were established.

The Secretary of State's decision, based on the written expert reports and the Parole Board's decision, was not irrational or unfair. The Secretary of State reasonably prioritized a Progression Regime to address outstanding concerns before moving to open conditions. The court emphasized the evaluative nature of the decision and the Secretary of State's entitlement to a different judgment, even with respect to the Parole Board's view.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.