Key Facts
- •Colin Gunn, serving a life sentence for conspiracy to murder, challenges his 'High Escape Risk' classification.
- •The classification impacts prison regime, security categorization, and parole prospects.
- •The decision was based on intelligence suggesting Gunn is a leading member of an Organized Crime Group (OCG).
- •Gunn argues irrationality (Ground 1) and procedural unfairness (Ground 2), primarily the lack of an oral hearing.
- •The court considered several prior cases on prisoner classification challenges, acknowledging potential shifts in procedural fairness standards.
- •The court reviewed intelligence reports, Gunn's submissions, and witness testimony from the Category A Review Team.
Legal Principles
Rationality review of expert risk assessments: Courts should not apply a 'super-irrationality' test but consider if the decision logically follows from the evidence.
This judgment
Procedural fairness in prisoner classification is fact and context-specific; standards from parole board cases cannot be directly applied.
R(Hassett & Price) v SSJ [2017] EWCA Civ 331
While a default rule against oral hearings in Escape Risk Classification (ERC) is acceptable, the policy should acknowledge the possibility of exceptions.
This judgment
Transparency and accessibility are crucial, especially for vulnerable individuals like prisoners; the possibility of an oral hearing should be clear in published policies.
This judgment
Outcomes
Claim dismissed.
The court found the escape risk classification decision was not irrational, and that procedural fairness did not require an oral hearing in this specific case.