Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Omar Khyam, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice

30 January 2023
[2023] EWHC 160 (Admin)
High Court
A prisoner challenged the decision to keep him in the highest security category. The judge said there wasn't enough reason to hold a hearing or to change the decision, even though some of the information given was a little confusing.

Key Facts

  • •Omar Khyam, a Category A prisoner at HMP Full Sutton, challenges the decision to remain in Category A.
  • •Khyam was convicted in 2007 of conspiracy to cause explosions and possession of terrorist material.
  • •He received a life sentence with a 20-year minimum tariff.
  • •Since 2015, Khyam has shown commendable progress in rehabilitation programs.
  • •A pre-tariff parole review was authorized in 2020.
  • •The Category A Team (CAT) decided on 7 January 2022 to keep Khyam in Category A.
  • •Multiple reports from prison professionals offered differing opinions on Khyam's risk and suitability for recategorization.
  • •Khyam argues that the CAT should have held an oral hearing and provided adequate reasons for its decision.

Legal Principles

A prisoner may be lawfully confined as the Secretary of State directs (Prison Act 1952, s.12).

Prison Act 1952, s.12

The Secretary of State may make rules for classifying prisoners (Prison Act 1952, s.47).

Prison Act 1952, s.47

Categorisation decisions must be based on risk factors alone, not as reward or punishment.

Framework Policy on Categorisation (FPC)

For downgrading a Category A prisoner, convincing evidence of significantly reduced reoffending risk is needed.

Prison Service Instruction 08/2013 (PSI 08/2013), para. 4.2

An oral hearing is required if fairness demands it for a fair disposal of the case.

R (Shaffi) v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] EWHC 3113 (Admin)

Reasons for a decision must be proper, adequate, and intelligible.

Common law and PSI 08/2013, para. 4.28

Outcomes

The claim for judicial review is dismissed.

The court found that neither common law fairness nor PSI 08/2013 required an oral hearing. The differing expert opinions did not create a critical difference impacting the CAT's risk assessment. The reasons given for the decision, while containing one potentially flawed element, were ultimately sufficient and did not cause substantial prejudice.

Oral Hearing Ground dismissed.

While some factual disputes existed between expert reports, the court found these did not reach the threshold requiring an oral hearing. The differing assessments related to different criteria (parole vs. escape risk) and did not substantially undermine the CAT's conclusion.

Reasons Ground dismissed.

The reasons provided by the CAT were deemed adequate and intelligible, even with one potentially flawed point regarding the possibility of simulated progress. The court found that even if corrected, the flawed reasoning would not have altered the outcome.

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.