Nathaniel Adams v The Parole Board for England and Wales
[2022] EWHC 3406 (Admin)
Michael Chiswick, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice & Anor
22 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 1223 (Admin)
High Court
A prisoner's parole was denied. A court ruled that the government had wrongly stopped experts from giving their opinions, making the parole decision unfair. The court overturned the parole decision but didn't award extra money because there wasn't enough proof the prisoner suffered from the government's actions.
Key Facts
- •The case concerns the Parole Board's decision not to release Michael Chiswick.
- •The decision was made on March 13, 2023.
- •The Justice Secretary's actions in June, July, and October 2022, prohibiting state professional witnesses from offering opinions on suitability for release, are central to the case.
- •These actions were deemed unlawful in R (Bailey) v Secretary of State for Justice [2023] EWHC 555 (Admin).
- •Two key reports (Psychological Assessment Report and Community Offender Manager Report) were affected by the unlawful actions, omitting opinions on release suitability.
- •The Parole Board's decision was challenged via judicial review.
Legal Principles
Separation of powers and Article 5(4) ECHR prohibit the Justice Secretary from encroaching on the Parole Board's judicial functions.
R (Bailey) v Secretary of State for Justice [2023] EWHC 555 (Admin)
Procedural unfairness can vitiate Parole Board decisions if relevant evidence is unlawfully prohibited.
Common law and Article 5(4) ECHR
A report writer has a legal obligation to provide a view on suitability for release if directed by the Parole Board.
Common law
The unlawful actions must have a vitiating impact on the Parole Board's decision-making to be grounds for quashing the decision.
Common law principles of judicial review
Section 31(2A) Senior Courts Act 1981 requires refusal of relief if the outcome would likely be the same without the unlawful conduct.
Senior Courts Act 1981, s.31(2A)
Outcomes
The claim for judicial review succeeds.
The Justice Secretary's unlawful actions vitiated the Parole Board's decision-making process by suppressing relevant evidence and interfering with the Board's judicial functions. The Parole Board's decision was procedurally unfair and contrary to law.
A declaration is granted that the Parole Board's decision of March 13, 2023 was unlawful.
The unlawful actions of the Justice Secretary had a material impact on the Parole Board's decision.
The Parole Board's decision of March 13, 2023 is quashed.
The decision was vitiated by the unlawful actions of the Justice Secretary.
The claim for damages under the HRA is refused.
Insufficient evidence was presented to support a claim for damages for anxiety and frustration.
The First Defendant (Secretary of State for Justice) is ordered to pay the Claimant's costs.
The claim for judicial review succeeded.
Similar Cases
Scott Newson, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice
[2022] EWHC 2836 (Admin)
Abdul Khalisadar, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 2408 (Admin)
Russell McPhee, R (on the application) v The Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 1247 (Admin)
Adrian John Bailey & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2023] EWHC 555 (Admin)