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
23 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 1247 (Admin)
High Court
A prisoner's parole board wanted him moved to a less secure prison. The government said no, but the judge said the government didn't give good enough reasons. The judge ordered the government to reconsider and give proper reasons this time.
Key Facts
- •Russell McPhee, a 47-year-old IPP prisoner, had his parole board recommendation for transfer to open conditions rejected by the Secretary of State for Justice.
- •McPhee had been recalled three times previously.
- •The Parole Board's recommendation was based on an extensive review of evidence, including reports and oral testimony.
- •The Secretary of State's rejection was based on concerns about McPhee's compliance and risk in the community.
- •The key disagreement centered on whether McPhee's risk was manageable in open conditions, with the Parole Board believing it was and the Secretary of State disagreeing.
Legal Principles
The decision to move a prisoner to open conditions rests with the Secretary of State, not the Parole Board; however, the Secretary of State must consider the Parole Board's recommendation and give it appropriate weight, providing sufficient reasons for any departure.
R (Oakley) v Secretary of State for Justice [2024] EWHC 292 (Admin) and R (Overton) v Secretary of State for Justice [2023] EWHC 3071 (Admin)
The Secretary of State's justification for departing from the Parole Board's recommendation must be cogent and rational, showing proper engagement with the Parole Board's assessment.
R (Kumar) v Secretary of State for Justice [2019] EWHC 444 (Admin) and R (McKoy) v Secretary of State for Justice [2023] EWHC 3047 (Admin)
Outcomes
The court quashed the Secretary of State's decision to reject the Parole Board's recommendation.
The Secretary of State's justification was insufficient; it lacked cogent reasoning and relied on mere assertion rather than a proper engagement with the Parole Board's assessment and evidence.
The Secretary of State was ordered to reconsider the matter, taking into account new evidence provided to the Parole Board.
The court found the Secretary of State's reasons for rejecting the Parole Board recommendation were not sufficiently reasoned and based on unsupported assertions.
Similar Cases
Brendon Oxendale, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 2407 (Admin)
Sean Allen, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 2370 (Admin)
Zarak McKoy, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice
[2023] EWHC 3047 (Admin)
Mark Messenger v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 2463 (Admin)