Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Mark Messenger v Secretary of State for Justice

9 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2463 (Admin)
High Court
A prisoner wanted to move to an open prison, the Parole Board said yes, but the government said no. A judge decided the government had good reasons to say no because the prisoner still wasn't fully taking responsibility for his actions.

Key Facts

  • •Mark Messenger, serving an Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence for attempted murder, challenges the Secretary of State's refusal to transfer him to open conditions.
  • •The Parole Board recommended a move to open conditions, citing progress made by Messenger.
  • •The Secretary of State rejected the recommendation, citing concerns about Messenger's continued minimization of his offense, lack of internalised understanding of risk factors, and potential for harm in open conditions.
  • •The High Court considered whether the Secretary of State's decision was irrational in light of the Parole Board's recommendation.

Legal Principles

The Secretary of State has the primary decision-making power regarding prisoner allocation and transfer to open conditions.

Prison Act 1952, s. 12(2); Prison Rules 1999, r. 7

The Parole Board's recommendation should be given due weight, but the Secretary of State must have a reasonable basis for rejecting it, particularly regarding risk assessment where the Parole Board has significant expertise.

R (Sneddon) v Secretary of State for Justice [2023] EWHC 3303 (Admin); R (Oakley) v Secretary of State for Justice (No2) [2024] EWHC 292 (Admin); R (Dobson) v Secretary of State of Justice [2023] EWHC 50 (Admin)

The Secretary of State's decision must not be irrational; the test for irrationality is a high one.

Implicit in the judgment

Outcomes

The High Court dismissed Messenger's claim.

The court found that the Secretary of State gave due weight to the Parole Board's recommendation but reasonably concluded that Messenger's risk had not been sufficiently reduced to justify a transfer to open conditions. The Secretary of State’s concerns regarding Messenger’s lack of insight and continued minimization of his actions were deemed sufficient to justify the decision.

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.