Russell McPhee, R (on the application) v The Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 1247 (Admin)
Sean Allen, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
26 September 2024
[2024] EWHC 2370 (Admin)
High Court
A prisoner's transfer to a less secure prison was blocked by the government. A judge overturned the decision because the government didn't properly explain why it disagreed with the experts who recommended the transfer. The judge said the government has the final say, but must give good reasons and consider expert opinions.
Key Facts
- •Sean Allen, convicted of murder in 2007, had his 18-year tariff expire in November 2024.
- •The Parole Board recommended his transfer to open prison in 2022.
- •The Secretary of State for Justice rejected the recommendation in July 2023 under the new policy (GPPPF 2023).
- •The case is unusual due to its timing (one of the first under GPPPF 2023), a 'transitional mismatch' between Parole Board Directions and GPPPF versions, and 'internal disagreement' within the Ministry of Justice.
- •The Secretary of State's decision was made under GPPPF 2023, which requires 'sufficient progress', 'low risk of abscond', and a 'wholly persuasive case' for transfer.
Legal Principles
The Secretary of State has the ultimate decision on prisoner transfer, but must engage properly with the Parole Board's recommendation and provide rational and properly justified reasons for departure.
R(Draper) v SSJ, R(Hahn) v SSJ, R(Overton) v SSJ, R(Gilbert) v SSJ
Different rational conclusions are possible; the focus is on the rationality of the Secretary of State's decision, not the Parole Board's.
R(Wilmot) v SSJ, R(Gilbert) v SSJ
The Secretary of State's department has expertise in risk assessment and prison estate management, but must still account for and engage with the Parole Board's advice.
R(Gilbert) v SSJ, R(Kumar) v SSJ, R(Hassett) v SSJ
The level of reasoning required depends on the issue; more detailed reasoning is needed for departures from findings of primary facts where the Parole Board has a particular advantage.
R(Oakley No.1) v SSJ, R(Overton) v SSJ
Internal disagreement within the Ministry of Justice does not automatically invalidate a decision, but a decision-maker must still provide adequate reasons for their decision, especially when disagreeing with unanimous professional opinions.
R(Wynne) v SSJ, this case
The 'wholly persuasive case' criterion in GPPPF 2023 requires a high standard of persuasion, but the Secretary of State does not need to show deficiencies in the Parole Board's decision; reasoned disagreement is sufficient, provided it's sufficiently reasoned and shows appropriate respect for the Board's recommendation.
R(Kumar) v SSJ, R(Valentine) v SSJ, this case
Outcomes
The Secretary of State's decision to reject the Parole Board's recommendation was quashed.
The decision-maker failed to properly engage with the Parole Board's recommendation and the unanimous opinions of the report writers; the reasoning was inadequate and internally inconsistent.
Similar Cases
Abdul Khalisadar, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 2408 (Admin)
Ripon Uddin, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 696 (Admin)
Steven Lee Draper, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 1892 (Admin)
Brendon Oxendale, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 2407 (Admin)