Key Facts
- •Reuben Valentine, a serving prisoner, challenged the Secretary of State for Justice's decision to not transfer him from closed to open prison conditions, contrary to the Parole Board's recommendation.
- •Valentine's index offence was murder committed in 2007, resulting in a 16-year minimum sentence.
- •He has a history of mental illness, including paranoid schizophrenia, and has spent time in secure hospital settings.
- •Since 2019, his mental health has been stable, and he has maintained enhanced status on the Incentives and Earned Privileges Scheme.
- •The Parole Board recommended transfer to open prison conditions, but the Secretary of State rejected this recommendation.
- •The challenge was based on the alleged irrationality of the Secretary of State's decision in departing from the Parole Board's recommendation.
Legal Principles
The Secretary of State has a discretion to accept or reject the Parole Board's recommendation, subject to the general public law obligation to act rationally.
R (Gilbert) v Secretary of State for Justice [2015] EWCA Civ 802
When disagreeing with the Parole Board, the Secretary of State must accord weight to its recommendations, give clear reasons for departing from findings where the Parole Board has a particular advantage (fact-finding), and give reasons for departing on other matters (risk assessment), subject to conventional public law grounds.
R (Green) v Secretary of State for Justice [2023] EWHC 1211 (Admin)
The Secretary of State must give reasons for departing from the Parole Board's view, but the nature and quality of reasons required may differ depending on whether the Parole Board had a particular advantage.
R (Oakley) v Secretary of State for Justice [2023] 1 WLR 751
On evaluative judgments balancing prisoner and public interests, the Secretary of State is entitled to their own judgment, though the Parole Board's expertise requires appropriate respect.
R (Cain) v Secretary of State for Justice [2024] EWHC 426 (Admin)
The Parole Board has legally significant advantages in risk assessment expertise and due process; the Secretary of State must accord weight to its recommendations, with the required weight depending on the matters in issue.
R (Sneddon) v Secretary of State for Justice [2024] 1 WLR 1894
Outcomes
Claim dismissed.
The Secretary of State's decision was not irrational. The reasons given for rejecting the Parole Board's recommendation, particularly concerning the claimant's attitude towards the index offence, continued need for consolidation, concerns about compliance and behaviour, naivety regarding community life, and the availability of a Progression Regime as an alternative, were sufficient and rationally supported the decision.