Neil Garmson, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board for England and Wales
[2024] EWHC 1106 (Admin)
Paul Somers, R (on the application of) v Parole Board for England and Wales
15 May 2023
[2023] EWHC 1160 (Admin)
High Court
A man serving a life sentence was denied an oral hearing for his parole review. A judge said that was unfair because the Parole Board didn't consider all the relevant information and that the man deserved a chance to explain his side of things in person. The judge ordered a new hearing.
Key Facts
- •Paul Somers, born 13 May 1958, was convicted in 1991 of the rape and murder of a 10-year-old girl.
- •He received a life sentence with a 21-year tariff, expiring 16 August 2012.
- •This was his eighth post-tariff parole review.
- •The Parole Board refused his application for an oral hearing of his parole review.
- •Somers' application challenged the refusal of an oral hearing, claiming fundamental errors of law.
- •The Parole Board sought guidance on whether Article 5(4) ECHR is engaged and when fairness requires an oral hearing when release isn't at issue.
- •Somers had completed core risk reduction work but remained in Category A prison due to concerns about his behavior.
- •The Parole Board raised concerns about Somers' behaviour with female prison staff, although no disciplinary action was taken.
Legal Principles
Procedural fairness requires an oral hearing in parole reviews when fairness to the prisoner requires it, considering the facts and importance of what's at stake. This fulfills the duty under section 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to act compatibly with Article 5(4) ECHR.
R (Osborn and Booth) v Parole Board [2014] AC 115
Factors indicating the need for an oral hearing include disputed facts, significant explanations/mitigation needing oral assessment, inability to properly assess risk without an oral hearing, and the need to effectively present a case or challenge views from those who dealt with the prisoner.
R (Osborn and Booth) v Parole Board [2014] AC 115
The Parole Board's duty is to advise the Secretary of State on matters referred to it concerning early release or recall of prisoners.
Section 239(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
The Parole Board is responsible for considering whether tariff-expired life prisoners should be released.
Section 28 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997
Everyone deprived of liberty has the right to speedy court proceedings determining the lawfulness of detention and ordering release if unlawful.
Article 5(4) ECHR
Outcomes
The Parole Board's decision was quashed.
The Parole Board failed to apply the principles of Osborn, not considering whether fairness required an oral hearing and neglecting relevant elements of the case.
The matter was remitted for an oral hearing.
Various factors, including disputed facts, the need to challenge allegations of inappropriate behavior, the availability of new material, and the importance of an open forum for exploring insight and risk assessment, warranted an oral hearing.
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)
Anthony Clarke, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWCA Civ 861
Thomas Green, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2023] EWHC 626 (Admin)