Paul Somers, R (on the application of) v Parole Board for England and Wales
[2023] EWHC 1160 (Admin)
Ezekel Taylor, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board for England and Wales
14 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 1363 (Admin)
High Court
A prisoner was denied a hearing about his release. A judge said this was unfair because the Parole Board didn't give good reasons and didn't consider all the facts properly. The judge ordered a hearing must now happen.
Key Facts
- •Ezekel Taylor, a recalled IPP prisoner, challenged the Parole Board's refusal to grant him an oral hearing on his application for release.
- •The Parole Board's decisions were made on the papers without an oral hearing on June 19th and July 4th, 2023, becoming final on July 25th, 2023.
- •Taylor's original sentence was for wounding with intent, possession of a firearm, affray, and drug possession; he was recalled after being convicted of intentional strangulation and assault.
- •Taylor argued procedural unfairness, inadequate reasons, and irrationality in the Parole Board's refusal of an oral hearing.
- •The Parole Board's reasons for denying an oral hearing centered on the absence of offence-focused work to address risk stemming from the new conviction.
Legal Principles
Common law standards of procedural fairness require an oral hearing when fairness to the prisoner demands it, considering the case facts and stakes involved; this also fulfills the duty under section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 to act compatibly with Article 5(4) ECHR.
R (Osborn) v The Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61
Reasons for a decision must be intelligible and adequate, enabling understanding of the decision and resolution of key issues; the reasoning must not create substantial doubt about the decision-maker's legality.
South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter (No 2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953
A request for an oral hearing should not be treated as an appeal; the question is whether fairness requires a hearing, not whether the paper decision was wrong.
R (Osborn) v The Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61
Outcomes
The court quashed the Parole Board's decisions.
Procedural fairness required an oral hearing due to several factors: Taylor's previous successful community management, the absence of a Prison Offender Manager's evidence, and the need to explore the community risk management plan and the Community Offender Manager's views. The reasons provided by the Parole Board were deemed inadequate; they failed to meaningfully engage with Taylor's arguments.
Similar Cases
Dominic McKilligan v Parole Board for England and Wales
[2024] EWHC 336 (Admin)
Neil Garmson, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board for England and Wales
[2024] EWHC 1106 (Admin)
John Dawes, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board for England & Wales
[2024] EWHC 2691 (Admin)
Shane Wylie, R (on the application of) v Parole Board for England and Wales
[2024] EWHC 52 (Admin)