Stephen Alan Wynne, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2023] EWHC 1111 (Admin)
Steven Lee Draper, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
29 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1892 (Admin)
High Court
A prisoner was recommended for transfer to a less secure prison by the Parole Board. The government refused, claiming it would be bad for public confidence. The court sided with the prisoner, saying the government's decision was illogical and didn't properly consider expert opinions that supported the transfer. The government's refusal was overturned.
Key Facts
- •Steven Lee Draper, serving a life sentence for murder, challenged the Secretary of State for Justice's refusal to transfer him from closed to open prison conditions.
- •The Parole Board recommended the transfer, concluding that further testing and monitoring in less secure conditions were necessary.
- •The Secretary of State rejected the recommendation, citing concerns about undermining public confidence and the lack of essentiality of open conditions to inform future release decisions.
- •The claimant argued the decision was inadequately reasoned, ignoring relevant considerations, and irrational.
- •The Secretary of State's decision relied on misinterpretations and omissions of evidence from professional witnesses who supported the transfer.
Legal Principles
The decision on whether to move a prisoner from closed to open prison conditions ultimately rests with the Secretary of State, not the Parole Board.
Hahn v Secretary of State for Justice [2024] EWHC 1559 (Admin); Overton v Secretary of State for Justice [2023] EWHC 3071 (Admin)
The Secretary of State must consider and properly engage with the Parole Board's recommendation.
Hahn v Secretary of State for Justice [2024] EWHC 1559 (Admin); Overton v Secretary of State for Justice [2023] EWHC 3071 (Admin)
A Secretary of State's decision departing from the Parole Board's recommendation must be rational and properly justified.
Hahn v Secretary of State for Justice [2024] EWHC 1559 (Admin); Overton v Secretary of State for Justice [2023] EWHC 3071 (Admin)
A Secretary of State's decision must address relevant issues and articulate reasons for differing views, though not necessarily a point-by-point rebuttal.
Hahn v Secretary of State for Justice [2024] EWHC 1559 (Admin); Overton v Secretary of State for Justice [2023] EWHC 3071 (Admin)
The Secretary of State must engage with the views of professional witnesses and provide reasons for departing from their overall assessment.
Wynne v Secretary of State for Justice [2023] EWHC 1111 (Admin)
When considering a Parole Board recommendation, the Secretary of State must act fairly, provide adequate reasons, and not misinterpret or disregard the Board's reasoning.
Adetoro v Secretary of State for Justice [2012] EWHC 2576 (Admin)
A transfer to open conditions can be a testing ground to observe a prisoner's practical application of learned skills.
Parole Board Oral Hearings Guide Annexe I; Akbar v The Secretary of State for Justice [2019] EWHC 3123 (Admin)
Outcomes
The Secretary of State's decision was quashed.
The decision was irrationally reasoned and inadequately justified due to misinterpretations and omissions of key evidence from professional witnesses supporting the transfer. The Secretary of State failed to engage with the prevailing expert opinion.
Similar Cases
Adam Swellings, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 771 (Admin)
Cain, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 426 (Admin)
Brendon Oxendale, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 2407 (Admin)
Robert Karoly Hahn v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 1559 (Admin)