Paul Somers, R (on the application of) v Parole Board for England and Wales
[2023] EWHC 1160 (Admin)
Dominic McKilligan v Parole Board for England and Wales
20 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 336 (Admin)
High Court
A prisoner serving a life sentence challenged the Parole Board's refusal to give him an oral hearing. The judge agreed that the prisoner deserved a hearing because the Parole Board didn't consider important facts fairly, including outdated risk assessments and unlawfully obtained reports. The judge ordered the Parole Board to hold a hearing.
Key Facts
- •Dominic McKilligan (now Dominic Ngqobe-Kunuk) challenges the Parole Board's April 18, 2023 decision refusing his request for an oral hearing.
- •McKilligan received a life sentence in 1999 for murder (with a 20-year tariff expiring in 2018) and a subsequently quashed rape conviction.
- •He's been post-tariff for 5 years and 6 months at the time of the judgment, and his case had been reviewed by the Parole Board in 2019 and 2021.
- •The Parole Board's 2023 decision, made by a single member (MCA), refused an oral hearing citing the pending 1:1 psychological sessions and the need for an updated risk assessment.
- •McKilligan's solicitors argued for an oral hearing due to disputed facts, risk assessments, a potentially discredited report, missing reports, and the need for updated assessment, and his prolonged post-tariff detention.
- •The reports from his Prison Offender Manager (POM) and Community Offender Manager (COM) were written under unlawful rules prohibiting recommendations on release (Bailey and Morris).
Legal Principles
Procedural fairness in parole hearings requires an oral hearing when fairness to the prisoner demands it, considering the facts and stakes involved. This aligns with Article 5(4) of the ECHR.
R (Osborn, Booth and Reilly) v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61
A presumption in favour of an oral hearing exists for post-tariff lifers; a good reason for refusal must be present.
R (Somers) v Parole Board [2023] EWHC 1160 (Admin)
Parole Board Rules 2019 allow for provisional paper decisions with a 28-day window for requesting an oral hearing.
Parole Board Rules 2019
Guidance instructing prison staff to omit release recommendations from reports was unlawful, impacting evidence available to the Parole Board.
R (Bailey and Morris) v Secretary of State for Justice [2023] EWHC 555 (Admin)
Outcomes
The Parole Board's decision refusing an oral hearing is quashed.
The Board failed to properly consider the Osborn principles of fairness, particularly regarding the Claimant's prolonged post-tariff detention, disputed facts, outdated risk assessments, and the unlawful omission of recommendations in the POM and COM reports.
An oral hearing is ordered before the Parole Board.
Fairness requires an oral hearing to address disputed facts, assess risk properly considering the outdated assessments and the impact of the unlawful guidance on the POM and COM reports, and determine appropriate next steps for the Claimant's progress.
Similar Cases
Neil Garmson, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board for England and Wales
[2024] EWHC 1106 (Admin)
Ezekel Taylor, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board for England and Wales
[2024] EWHC 1363 (Admin)
Shane Wylie, R (on the application of) v Parole Board for England and Wales
[2024] EWHC 52 (Admin)
Mina Dich, R (on the application of) v Parole Board for England and Wales & Anor.
[2023] EWHC 945 (Admin)