Steven Lee Draper, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 1892 (Admin)
Robert Karoly Hahn v Secretary of State for Justice
24 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 1559 (Admin)
High Court
A prisoner challenged the government's refusal to move him to a less secure prison, even though the parole board said he should be moved. The judge agreed with the prisoner, saying the government didn't explain its decision properly and didn't understand the parole board's report. The judge ordered the government to reconsider the prisoner's case properly.
Key Facts
- •Robert Karoly Hahn, a 57-year-old life sentence prisoner for murder, challenged the Secretary of State for Justice's (SSJ) decision to reject the Parole Board's recommendation for his transfer to open prison conditions.
- •The SSJ's decision was based on criteria in paragraph 5.8.2 of the Generic Parole Process Policy Framework (GPPPF).
- •The Parole Board recommended the transfer, highlighting Hahn's improved conduct and low risk, despite acknowledging his dishonesty.
- •The SSJ rejected the recommendation, citing concerns about Hahn's dishonesty and the essentiality of open conditions for his rehabilitation.
- •The claimant argued that the SSJ's decision lacked adequate reasoning and was irrational.
- •The SSJ argued that even with improved reasoning, the decision would likely have been the same.
Legal Principles
The SSJ has the primary decision-making power regarding prisoner transfers, but must genuinely engage with the Parole Board's recommendation and provide rational justification for any departure.
R (Zenshen) v Secretary of State for Justice [2023] EWHC 2279 (Admin)
The court assesses the rationality of the SSJ's decision, not the Parole Board's recommendation.
R (Overton) v Secretary of State for Justice [2023] EWHC 3071 (Admin); R (Uddin) v Secretary of State for Justice [2024] EWHC 696 (Admin)
The SSJ's decision letter must clearly explain the reasons for disagreeing with the Parole Board, demonstrating proper engagement with the Board's assessment.
R (Overton) v Secretary of State for Justice [2023] EWHC 3071 (Admin)
The weight given to the Parole Board's recommendation depends on the matter at issue. Matters of fact require more detailed reasoning than predictive or policy-related assessments.
R (Oakley) v Secretary of State for Justice [2022] EWHC 2602 (Admin)
Under Section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, relief must be refused if the outcome would likely be the same even with proper conduct.
R(Cava Bien Ltd) v Milton Keynes Council [2021] EWHC 3003 (Admin)
Outcomes
The claim succeeded.
The SSJ's decision lacked adequate engagement with the Parole Board's recommendation, contained inadequate reasoning, and showed a misunderstanding of the Board's analysis. Section 31(2A) did not preclude relief because a different outcome was possible with proper engagement.
The SSJ's decision was quashed.
The court found the decision to be inadequately reasoned and based on a misinterpretation of the Parole Board's recommendation.
A fresh consideration of Hahn's transfer to open conditions was ordered.
The court found that the initial decision was flawed and required reconsideration with proper engagement and reasoning.
Similar Cases
Robert Sneddon v Secretary of State for Justice
[2023] EWHC 3303 (Admin)
Abdul Khalisadar, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 2408 (Admin)
Russell McPhee, R (on the application) v The Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 1247 (Admin)
Reuben Valentine, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 1534 (Admin)