Nathaniel Adams v The Parole Board for England and Wales
[2022] EWHC 3406 (Admin)
Scott Newson, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice
9 November 2022
[2022] EWHC 2836 (Admin)
High Court
A man was supposed to be released from prison months ago, but the government messed up and didn't arrange his housing. A judge said this was illegal and the government has to pay him money.
Key Facts
- •Claimant serving an indeterminate prison sentence (IPP).
- •Parole Board directed Claimant's release on February 28, 2022, subject to conditions including approved accommodation.
- •Defendant (Secretary of State for Justice) failed to arrange release, leading to a judicial review claim.
- •8 months and 5 days passed between Parole Board direction and hearing.
- •Defendant offered undertaking to release Claimant by November 16, 2022, before judgment.
- •Claimant's risk management plan (RMP) fell through due to initial accommodation withdrawal and subsequent incident.
- •Defendant's system for finding accommodation was inadequate and lacked transparency.
Legal Principles
Right to liberty and security of person
Article 5, European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
Duty to release certain life prisoners (including IPP sentences)
Section 28, Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (CSA 1997)
Timing of release following Parole Board direction
Section 32ZB, CSA 1997 (came into force June 28, 2022)
Duty of candour in judicial review proceedings
R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 4) [2016] UKSC 35
Public body's duty to operate a proper system and act reasonably
R (Kaiyam) v Justice Secretary [2015] AC 1344
Wednesbury unreasonableness
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corpn [1948] 1 KB 223
Shifting burden of proof in cases involving liberty
Eshugbayi Eleko v Government of Nigeria [1931] AC 662 and R v SSHD ex p Khawaja [1984] AC 74
Outcomes
Permission granted for judicial review.
Grounds are arguable.
Declaration that the Defendant unlawfully failed to release the Claimant by July 31, 2022, and that detention from August 1, 2022, was unlawful.
Defendant's delay was unreasonable and unlawful due to systemic failures, inactivity, and inadequate communication, breaching Article 5 ECHR and sections 28 and 32ZB of the CSA 1997.
Judgment for Claimant for damages for unlawful imprisonment and breach of Article 5 rights.
Unlawful detention from August 1, 2022.
Similar Cases
Michael Chiswick, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1223 (Admin)
Ebou Jasseh v The Home Office
[2024] EWHC 31 (KB)
Fuad Awale, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 2322 (Admin)
Adrian John Bailey & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2023] EWHC 555 (Admin)