Scott Newson, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice
[2022] EWHC 2836 (Admin)
Nathaniel Adams v The Parole Board for England and Wales
9 December 2022
[2022] EWHC 3406 (Admin)
High Court
A man's parole hearing was delayed for too long, and the Parole Board made a bad decision about speeding it up. The judge said the Parole Board was wrong and should have acted faster, but didn't set a specific date for his release.
Key Facts
- •Claimant serving a five-year determinate sentence for rape and other offences.
- •Released on licence, then recalled due to domestic violence allegations.
- •Police decided to take no further action on allegations; possibility of malice considered.
- •Claim for judicial review against Parole Board (Secretary of State's involvement removed).
- •Grounds: delay in parole review, unlawful refusal of expedition/prioritization.
- •Significant delay between recall and hearing listing; administrative error contributed.
- •Parole Board hearing eventually listed for December 14, 2022.
Legal Principles
Parole Board has a common law duty to act within a reasonable time in parole reviews.
R (Youngsam) v. Parole Board [2017] EWHC 729 (Admin)
Listing for parole review is a judicial function.
R (McKenzie) v. Leeds Crown Court [2020] EWHC 1867 (Admin)
Operational or resourcing issues are not a lawful excuse for unreasonable delay in parole reviews.
Noorkoiv v. Secretary of State for the Home Department and Parole Board [2002] 1 WLR 3284
The Parole Board's listing prioritisation framework considers length of delay as a reason for prioritisation in recall cases.
Parole Board listing prioritisation framework for oral hearings (undated, published April 2020)
Outcomes
Parole Board breached its common law duty to act within a reasonable time.
Unreasonable delay in parole review, partially due to an administrative error and insufficient capacity.
Decision of 9 June 2022 to refuse expedition/prioritization was unlawful.
Irrelevant consideration (case volume) used; failure to consider relevant factors (length of delay, other cases prioritized); inadequate reasons provided.
Declaration granted that the parole review hearing was unlawfully delayed and the 9 June 2022 decision was unlawful.
To address the unlawful delay and decision.
Relief regarding specific release timelines refused.
Not properly pleaded; relief against Secretary of State inappropriate as no acts or omissions were challenged.
Liberty to apply granted.
Due to ongoing parole review and unlawful delay.
Similar Cases
Michael Chiswick, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1223 (Admin)
John Dawes, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board for England & Wales
[2024] EWHC 2691 (Admin)
Hesamedin Navabi, R (on the application of) v Crown Court at Durham
[2023] EWHC 943 (Admin)
Abdul Khalisadar, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 2408 (Admin)