Paul Somers, R (on the application of) v Parole Board for England and Wales
[2023] EWHC 1160 (Admin)
Neil Garmson, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board for England and Wales
9 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 1106 (Admin)
High Court
A prisoner challenged the Parole Board's decision to not give him an oral hearing. The judge said the board should have given him a hearing because it's fairer to hear a prisoner's side of things, especially for someone who's served most of their sentence and is close to release. The board focused on speed, not fairness.
Key Facts
- •Neil Garmson, convicted of kidnapping, rape, and sexual assault in 2007, serving a life sentence.
- •Parole Board initially directed an oral hearing in 2019, but subsequently decided to proceed on the papers in 2022.
- •Garmson challenged the Parole Board's decision to refuse reconsideration of the decision not to hold an oral hearing.
- •The case involved numerous adjournments and procedural delays.
Legal Principles
Procedural fairness in Parole Board hearings requires an oral hearing when fairness to the prisoner demands it, considering the facts and importance of what's at stake. This fulfils the duty under Article 5.4 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Osborn v Parole Board [2014] AC 1115
In cases of post-tariff indeterminate sentence prisoners, there's a presumption in favor of an oral hearing.
Somers v Parole Board [2023] EWHC 1160 (Admin)
Legitimate expectation requires a clear, unambiguous promise or undertaking, and departure must be justified as fair.
MFK Underwriting Agents Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 1545, Bancoult v Secretary of State [2009] 1 AC 453, Re Finucane’s Application [2019] UKSC 7
Focusing on the likely outcome of an oral hearing, rather than whether fairness necessitates one, is an error.
McKilligan v Parole Board [2024] EWHC 336 (Admin)
Article 5.4 of the ECHR provides a right to a speedy court determination of the lawfulness of detention.
European Convention on Human Rights
Outcomes
Claim succeeds.
The Parole Board erred by focusing on speed of review and potential outcome rather than fairness, failing to adequately consider whether the claimant, a post-tariff lifer, should have an opportunity to be heard given the disputed facts and his need to challenge risk assessments.
Ground 1 (Procedural Fairness) - Claim Succeeds
The Parole Board's decision failed to consider whether fairness required an oral hearing for a post-tariff prisoner, focused on speed and potential outcome, and did not address the claimant's challenges to risk assessments and other evidence.
Ground 2 (Legitimate Expectation) - Claim Fails
The initial direction for an oral hearing was not an unambiguous promise, and the subsequent reconsideration followed proper procedure.
Ground 3 (Article 5.4 ECHR) - Claim Succeeds (implicitly)
The breach of procedural fairness at common law also constitutes a breach of Article 5.4.
Similar Cases
Dominic McKilligan v Parole Board for England and Wales
[2024] EWHC 336 (Admin)
Ezekel Taylor, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board for England and Wales
[2024] EWHC 1363 (Admin)
Shane Wylie, R (on the application of) v Parole Board for England and Wales
[2024] EWHC 52 (Admin)
Anthony Clarke, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWCA Civ 861