Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Jonathan Andrew Williams, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice

15 August 2024
[2024] EWHC 2144 (Admin)
High Court
A prisoner's Parole Board wanted him moved to an open prison, but the government said no. A judge looked at whether the government gave good enough reasons. The judge decided that the government's reasons were good enough, even though the Parole Board has special knowledge about prisoners. The government had to consider keeping the public safe, which is why they made a different decision than the Parole Board.

Key Facts

  • •Jonathan Andrew Williams (Claimant) sought judicial review of the Secretary of State for Justice's (Defendant) rejection of a Parole Board recommendation to transfer him to open prison conditions.
  • •Claimant is a Category C prisoner serving an indeterminate sentence for rape and sexual assault.
  • •The Parole Board recommended transfer to open conditions, citing manageable risk with appropriate support.
  • •The Secretary of State rejected the recommendation, citing concerns about abscond risk and the lack of a wholly persuasive case for transfer.
  • •The Secretary of State's policy regarding transfer to open conditions changed between the Parole Board's recommendation and the Secretary of State's decision.

Legal Principles

The Secretary of State is the primary decision-maker regarding prisoner classification (Prison Act 1952, s.12(2)). The Parole Board provides advice (Criminal Justice Act 2003, s.239(2)).

R (on the application of Sneddon) v Secretary of State for Justice [2023] EWHC 3303 (Admin)

The Parole Board has legally significant institutional and due process advantages, particularly in risk assessment, but the Secretary of State also possesses expertise in prison management and risk assessment.

R (Banfield) v Secretary of State for Justice [2007] EWHC 2605 (Admin); R (on the application of Gilbert) v Secretary of State for Justice [2015] EWCA Civ 802

The Secretary of State must accord weight to the Parole Board's recommendation, with the required weight depending on the issue. The Secretary of State may reject the recommendation if there's a reasonable basis, particularly requiring 'very good reason' where the Parole Board had a significant advantage in the assessment.

R (on the application of Sneddon) v Secretary of State for Justice [2023] EWHC 3303 (Admin); R (Oakley) v Secretary of State for Justice [2022] EWHC 2602 (Admin)

The Secretary of State's decision must be rational and sufficiently reasoned, showing engagement with the Parole Board's assessment. The intensity of reasoning required varies depending on whether the issue is fact-based or predictive/policy-related.

R (on the application of Overton) v Secretary of State for Justice [2023] EWHC 3071 (Admin)

Outcomes

The claim was dismissed.

The court found the Secretary of State's decision was sufficiently reasoned. While acknowledging the Parole Board's expertise, the court emphasized the Secretary of State's own expertise and the need to balance public interest concerns, particularly given the Claimant's history and ongoing high risk to children. The court also considered the Secretary of State's internal proforma document in supporting the sufficiency of the reasoning.

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.