Steven Lee Draper, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 1892 (Admin)
Stephen Alan Wynne, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
11 May 2023
[2023] EWHC 1111 (Admin)
High Court
A prisoner, Stephen Wynne, was recommended for a move to a less secure prison by experts. The government said no, even though everyone else agreed. A judge said the government's reason wasn't good enough, and they had to reconsider.
Key Facts
- •Stephen Wynne is serving a life sentence for murder and arson.
- •The Parole Board recommended Wynne's transfer to open prison conditions.
- •The Secretary of State for Justice rejected the Parole Board's recommendation.
- •Wynne challenges the Secretary of State's decision via judicial review.
- •All six professional witnesses supported the transfer to open conditions.
- •The Secretary of State's decision was based on concerns about Wynne's risk, trustworthiness, risk of absconding, and tendency to justify actions.
- •The judge found the Secretary of State's decision to be irrational.
Legal Principles
The Secretary of State has discretion in determining prison allocation (Prison Act 1952, s.12(2)).
Prison Act 1952
The Parole Board advises the Secretary of State on early release or recall of prisoners (Criminal Justice Act 2003, s.239(2)).
Criminal Justice Act 2003
The Secretary of State may reject a Parole Board recommendation if there is not a wholly persuasive case for transfer to open conditions (Policy Framework §5.8.3).
Policy Framework
The Secretary of State's decision must be rational (Wednesbury unreasonableness).
Wednesbury unreasonableness
The Secretary of State must give due regard to the Parole Board's recommendation and reasons, but is entitled to a different view if appropriately reasoned.
R (Kumar) v Secretary of State for Justice [2019] EWHC 444 (Admin)
On matters where the Parole Board has a particular advantage (e.g., credibility assessments), the Secretary of State needs very good reason to depart from their findings.
R (Oakley) v Secretary of State for Justice [2022] EWHC 2602
Outcomes
The court quashed the Secretary of State's decision.
The Secretary of State's decision was irrational; he failed to provide good reason for rejecting the Parole Board's recommendation, particularly given the consensus of professional opinion and the Parole Board's thorough analysis.
Similar Cases
Brendon Oxendale, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 2407 (Admin)
Cain, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 426 (Admin)
Adam Swellings, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 771 (Admin)
Russell McPhee, R (on the application) v The Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 1247 (Admin)