Brendon Oxendale, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 2407 (Admin)
Karl Oakley, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
14 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 292 (Admin)
High Court
A prisoner's request to move to a less secure prison was denied by the government even though a board recommended it. A judge ruled the government was right because the government found additional reasons to keep the prisoner in the more secure prison that the board hadn't found.
Key Facts
- •Karl Oakley, a life sentence prisoner for manslaughter, challenged the Secretary of State's rejection of the Parole Board's recommendation to transfer him to open conditions.
- •This was the second time the Secretary of State rejected the Parole Board's recommendation; the first rejection was quashed and remitted for reconsideration.
- •Oakley's index offense involved a frenzied stabbing of his ex-partner.
- •Oakley has ASD and EUPD.
- •The Parole Board, after an oral hearing, recommended transfer to open conditions.
- •The Secretary of State's rejection was based on the belief that there wasn't a 'wholly persuasive case' for transfer.
Legal Principles
The Secretary of State's decision on prisoner transfer to open conditions is not bound by the Parole Board's recommendation but must be rational and properly justified.
Various cases, including R (Overton) v Secretary of State for Justice [2023] EWHC 3017 (Admin) and R (Sneddon) v Secretary of State for Justice [2023] EWHC 3303 (Admin)
When the Parole Board has a significant advantage (e.g., oral hearing, expert assessment), the Secretary of State needs 'very good reason' to depart from its conclusions. For other matters, 'good reason' and 'appropriate respect' are required.
R (Hindawi) v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] EWHC 830 (QB), R (John) v Secretary of State for Justice [2021] EWHC 1606 (Admin), R (Oakley) v Secretary of State for Justice [2022] EWHC 2602 (Admin)
The Secretary of State can consider material not before the Parole Board when making their decision.
This judgment
The court reviews the rationality of the Secretary of State's decision, not the Parole Board's recommendation.
R (Overton) v Secretary of State for Justice [2023] EWHC 3017 (Admin)
While anxious scrutiny is applied, the intensity depends on the context. A decision impacting liberty requires careful consideration, but doesn't necessitate a point-by-point rebuttal of the Parole Board’s view.
R (Overton) v Secretary of State for Justice [2023] EWHC 3017 (Admin), R (Dobson) v Secretary of State for Justice [2023] EWHC 50 (Admin)
Outcomes
Claim dismissed.
The Secretary of State's decision was deemed rational and sufficiently justified. The Secretary of State identified further necessary assessment (Stalking Risk Profile) not considered by the Parole Board, justifying the rejection of their recommendation for transfer to open conditions. The court emphasized the Secretary of State's independent decision-making power and ability to utilize additional material not presented to the Parole Board.
Similar Cases
Adam Swellings, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 771 (Admin)
Cain, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 426 (Admin)
Zarak McKoy, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice
[2023] EWHC 3047 (Admin)
Jonathan Andrew Williams, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 2144 (Admin)