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- •A Parole Board recommendation for Category D status was made but subsequently withdrawn by the Secretary of State.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.