Russell McPhee, R (on the application) v The Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 1247 (Admin)
Ripon Uddin, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
27 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 696 (Admin)
High Court
A parole board wanted to move a dangerous prisoner to a less secure prison. The justice secretary said no, because the prisoner still posed a high risk and needed more therapy. A judge agreed with the justice secretary, saying he gave good reasons for his decision.
Key Facts
- •Ripon Uddin received an indeterminate sentence with a minimum tariff of 2 years and 183 days in 2007 for assault occasioning grievous bodily harm with intent.
- •The Parole Board recommended in September 2022 that Uddin be transferred to open prison conditions.
- •The Secretary of State for Justice rejected the Parole Board's recommendation in December 2022.
- •The case concerns the lawfulness of the Secretary of State's decision.
- •The Secretary of State's decision was based on criteria including whether a period in open conditions was essential for future release decisions and whether the transfer would undermine public confidence in the Criminal Justice System.
Legal Principles
The Secretary of State's decision is subject to judicial review for irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness).
Various case laws cited, including R (on the application of Overton) v Secretary of State for Justice [2023] EWHC 3071, R (Wilmot) v Secretary of State [2012] EWHC 3139, R (on the application of Hindawi) v The Secretary of State for Justice [2011] EWHC 830, R(John) v Secretary of State for Justice [2021] EWHC 1606, R (on the application of Oakley) v The Secretary of State for Justice [2022] EWHC 2602, R(on the application of Sneddon) v Secretary of State for Justice [2023] EWHC 3303.
The court must distinguish between findings of fact by the Parole Board (which the Secretary of State can only depart from with good reason) and assessments of risk or evaluative judgments (where the Secretary of State can take a different view, having accorded appropriate respect to the Parole Board's view).
R (on the application of Hindawi) v The Secretary of State for Justice [2011] EWHC 830, R (on the application of Oakley) v The Secretary of State for Justice [2022] EWHC 2602, R(on the application of Sneddon) v Secretary of State for Justice [2023] EWHC 3303.
The Secretary of State's decision must have a reasonable basis, with the required level of justification depending on whether the Parole Board had a particular advantage in making the assessment (e.g., credibility after an oral hearing).
R(on the application of Sneddon) v Secretary of State for Justice [2023] EWHC 3303.
Outcomes
The judicial review claim failed.
The Secretary of State provided cogent reasons for rejecting the Parole Board's recommendation, demonstrating that his decision was not irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable. He properly engaged with the Parole Board's findings, but reasonably disagreed on the 'essential' nature of a transfer to open conditions given outstanding risk reduction work and the very high risk assessments, particularly regarding the claimant's history of domestic violence.
Similar Cases
Brendon Oxendale, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 2407 (Admin)
Adam Swellings, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 771 (Admin)
Sean Allen, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 2370 (Admin)
Abdul Khalisadar, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 2408 (Admin)