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.