Russell McPhee, R (on the application) v The Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 1247 (Admin)
Robert Sneddon v Secretary of State for Justice
21 December 2023
[2023] EWHC 3303 (Admin)
High Court
A prisoner's Parole Board said he should move to a less secure prison. The government disagreed and the court said the government needed better reasons to do so. The government's decision was overturned and they have to reconsider.
Key Facts
- •Robert Sneddon, a 70-year-old serving a life sentence for multiple rapes and indecent assaults, had his Parole Board recommendation for transfer to open conditions rejected by the Secretary of State for Justice (SSJ).
- •Sneddon has served 41 years and previously had four periods in open conditions, each ending due to breaches (alcohol, drugs, concerns about risk of absconding).
- •The Parole Board, after a thorough review, recommended transfer to open conditions, citing progress made by Sneddon and a low risk of reoffending.
- •The SSJ rejected the recommendation, citing concerns about Sneddon's risk-taking behavior, impression management, and the lack of a reliable support network.
- •The case centers on the interpretation of the SSJ's policy regarding rejection of Parole Board recommendations and the appropriate legal standard for judicial review.
Legal Principles
The SSJ's decision to reject a Parole Board recommendation must have a reasonable basis.
Various case laws (Hindawi, Gilbert, Kumar, etc.)
The Parole Board has legally significant institutional and due process advantages over the SSJ, particularly in assessing individual risk and conducting hearings.
Banfield, Kumar, Stephens
The SSJ must accord appropriate weight to the Parole Board's recommendation, with the required weight depending on the specific issue.
Hindawi, Kumar, Green
The SSJ cannot substitute their judgment for that of the Parole Board without reasonable justification. Rejection should be based on a deficiency in the Parole Board's assessment.
Kumar
On questions where the Parole Board has a significant advantage (e.g., credibility assessments, factual findings, expert risk evaluations), the SSJ needs very good or clear, cogent and convincing reasons for rejecting the recommendation.
Oakley, Green
Outcomes
The claim for judicial review succeeded.
The SSJ's decision lacked a reasonable basis; it misrepresented the Parole Board's assessment, failed to accord appropriate weight to the Board's findings, and didn't provide sufficient justification for rejecting the recommendation.
The SSJ's decision was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the SSJ for reconsideration.
The court found the SSJ's reasoning flawed and insufficient to justify the rejection of the Parole Board's well-reasoned recommendation.
Similar Cases
Robert Karoly Hahn v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 1559 (Admin)
Brendon Oxendale, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 2407 (Admin)
Abdul Khalisadar, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 2408 (Admin)
Karl Oakley, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 292 (Admin)