Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Dean Hallam, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice

14 November 2024
[2024] EWHC 2873 (Admin)
High Court
A man in prison for harming children was recommended for a less secure prison by a parole board. The government refused, saying it was too risky. A judge agreed with the government, saying their decision was reasonable and didn't ignore the parole board's opinion.

Key Facts

  • •Dean Hallam (Claimant) challenged the Secretary of State for Justice's (Defendant) refusal to accept the Parole Board's recommendation to return him to open conditions after a period in closed conditions due to breaches of restrictions.
  • •Hallam was serving an Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence for sexual offences against children.
  • •He was returned to closed conditions due to breaches of 'Person Posing Risk to Children' (PPRC) restrictions, including contact with a child under 18 and possession of child-related images.
  • •The Parole Board, considering various expert reports and evidence, recommended a return to open conditions.
  • •The Defendant rejected the recommendation, citing concerns about essentiality of open conditions and potential undermining of public confidence.
  • •The Claimant argued the Defendant's decision was irrational and inadequately reasoned.

Legal Principles

Judicial review of the Defendant's rejection of the Parole Board's recommendation requires assessment of risk and essentiality based on evidence, with due deference to Parole Board findings.

R (Sneddon) v Secretary of State for Justice [2023] EWHC 3303 (Admin); R (Draper) v Secretary of State for Justice [2024] EWHC 1892 (Admin); Hahn v Secretary of State for Justice [2024] EWHC 1559 (Admin); R (Green) v Secretary of State for Justice (No 2) [2023] EWHC 1211 (Admin)

The Secretary of State must accord weight to the Parole Board’s recommendations, giving clear, cogent, and convincing reasons for departing from them on matters where the Parole Board has a particular advantage (fact-finding). For other matters (risk assessment), appropriate respect must be given to the Parole Board’s view, with reasons provided for departure.

R (Green) v Secretary of State for Justice (No 2) [2023] EWHC 1211 (Admin)

The Secretary of State will accept a Parole Board recommendation for open conditions only if: (i) low risk of abscondment; (ii) open conditions are essential for informing future release decisions and preparation; and (iii) transfer would not undermine public confidence.

Generic Parole Process Policy Framework (GPPPF), Section 5.8.2

Outcomes

The claim for judicial review was dismissed.

The Judge found the Defendant's decision was not irrational. The Defendant had properly assessed the risk and essentiality, giving due weight to the Parole Board's findings and providing sufficient reasoning for disagreeing with the recommendation, considering the serious nature of Hallam's offences and ongoing concerns about his risk to children.

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.