Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Thomas Green, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice

22 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 626 (Admin)
High Court
A prisoner challenged why he wasn't given a meeting to discuss keeping him in the highest security prison. The judge said the rules didn't require a meeting, and the decision was fair even without one, because there was enough evidence to show he was still a high risk.

Key Facts

  • •Thomas Green, a 73-year-old Category A prisoner serving a life sentence for murder (since 2000, tariff expired 2013), challenged the Secretary of State's decision to maintain his Category A status.
  • •The challenge concerned two decisions: the initial decision (October 2021) to maintain Category A status and a subsequent refusal (January 2022) to reconsider this in light of a Parole Board recommendation for Category D status.
  • •Green argued that the decisions were unfair due to a lack of oral hearing, breaching Prison Service Instruction (PSI) 08/2013 and common law procedural fairness.
  • •The annual Category A review involved a dossier of reports, including psychological assessments from both HMPPS and Green's representatives.
  • •The Secretary of State's decision considered Green's lengthy prison term, post-tariff status, behaviour, and risk assessment, concluding that there wasn't convincing evidence of reduced risk.
  • •A Parole Board recommendation for Category D status was made but subsequently withdrawn by the Secretary of State.

Legal Principles

Administrative powers must be exercised fairly.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Doody [1994] 1 AC 531

In Parole Board contexts, an oral hearing is necessary when fairness requires it, often including disputes of fact, inability to assess risk without a hearing, inability to put case effectively without a hearing, or if representations raise serious questions about the paper decision.

R(Osborn) v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61

Categorisation (CART) decisions differ materially from Parole Board decisions; fairness requirements are less stringent for CART decisions due to their administrative nature and the ongoing information-gathering process within the prison system.

R (Hassett) v Secretary of State for Justice [2017] 1 WLR 4750; Lloyd v McMahon [1987] AC 625

While a policy should be followed unless there's good reason not to, failure to follow a policy doesn't automatically vitiate the decision.

R (All the Citizens) v Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and anr [2022] 1 WLR 3748

The court is the ultimate arbiter of fairness; while the decision-maker's view holds weight, the court decides what procedural fairness requires.

R v Panel on Take-Overs and Mergers, ex p Guinness [1990] 1 QB 146

Outcomes

Judicial review refused.

Neither ground (breach of PSI 08/2013 or common law procedural unfairness) was made out. PSI 08/2013 doesn't mandate oral hearings; the decision-maker considered the policy and concluded an oral hearing wasn't necessary for a fair decision. The court found no procedural unfairness, as the circumstances didn't require an oral hearing for a fair determination of the risk of re-offending.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.