Key Facts
- •John Dawes challenged the Parole Board's decision not to release him from custody.
- •The challenge was based on procedural unfairness and irrationality.
- •Dawes's 24-year sentence for drug conspiracy was subject to parole review.
- •His licence was revoked due to allegations of offences against his partner, Ms. X, later dropped by the CPS.
- •New evidence, including a police report and witness statements, was received after an oral hearing.
- •Dawes's solicitors requested a new panel due to concerns about procedural fairness and potential bias.
- •The Parole Board's decision stated that police were seeking a charging decision on a 'high-risk domestic incident,' which was disputed.
Legal Principles
High standard of procedural fairness is required in Parole Board cases.
Osborn and Booth [2013] UKSC 61
A decision might be different if procedural fairness had been followed.
R(Grinham)v Parole Board [2020] EWHC 2140 (Admin)
Parole Board panels should make findings of fact on the balance of probabilities regarding allegations.
R(Pearce) v Parole Board [2023] AC 807
Decision-maker must follow their own policy unless there is good reason not to.
R(Rose) v Secretary of State for Justice [2017] EWHC 1826 (Admin)
Parole Board has a duty to consider if a further hearing is necessary after receiving additional documents.
R(Gifford-Hull) v Parole Board [2021] EWHC 128 (Admin); R(Matthews) v Parole Board [2023] EWHC 694 (Admin)
Parole Board decisions can be quashed for mistakes of fact.
R(DSD) v Parole Board and Secretary of State for Justice [2019] QB 285
Irrationality challenges assess if the conclusion is justifiable based on evidence, applying anxious scrutiny.
R (Wells) v Parole Board [2019] EWHC 2710
Outcomes
Decision quashed due to procedural unfairness.
The Parole Board failed to hold a further oral hearing to allow Dawes to respond to new evidence and did not properly consider his application for a new panel, potentially creating an appearance of bias.
Decision quashed due to irrationality.
The Parole Board accepted the police report's assertion that charges were pending without sufficient investigation, despite conflicting information from Dawes's solicitors.