Paul Somers, R (on the application of) v Parole Board for England and Wales
[2023] EWHC 1160 (Admin)
Mina Dich, R (on the application of) v Parole Board for England and Wales & Anor.
26 April 2023
[2023] EWHC 945 (Admin)
High Court
Two prisoners challenged how the Parole Board decides if they are safe to release. The court said the Board *can* consider risks after the sentence ends, but only if keeping them in prison would actually stop those risks. One prisoner won because the Board didn't give him a proper hearing; the other's case wasn't decided yet, so the court just clarified the rules for the next hearing.
Key Facts
- •Two unconnected cases concerning the Parole Board's assessment of risk in releasing prisoners.
- •Mina Dich: Extended determinate sentence for terrorism-related offenses; Parole Board considered indefinite risk.
- •Oliver Murphy: Recalled to prison for breaching a sexual harm prevention order; Parole Board refused oral hearing and considered indefinite risk.
- •Common issue: Whether the Parole Board must consider only risks before the sentence expiry date or also risks after.
Legal Principles
Parole Board must consider whether continued confinement is necessary for public protection.
Sections 246A(6)(b) and 255C(4A) Criminal Justice Act 2003
The statutory test for release does not include a temporal element; risk assessment is not limited to the sentence expiry date.
R (Secretary of State for Justice) v Parole Board and Johnson [2022] EWHC 1282 (Admin)
There must be a causal link between continued detention and prevention or reduction of risk.
Johnson
A risk arising after sentence expiry can be considered if there's a causal link to continued detention and prevention of that risk.
Johnson
The Parole Board should not engage in a balancing exercise between public protection and prisoner's interests.
Paragraph 11, bullet point 1 of the Parole Board guidance
Fairness may require an oral hearing when significant factual disputes exist or where a proper assessment of risk requires it.
R (Osborn) v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61
Outcomes
No relief for Mina Dich.
The Parole Board's guidance was flawed but no substantive decision had been made. The court clarified the law, ensuring future decisions will be lawful.
Oliver Murphy's decision quashed.
The Parole Board failed to grant an oral hearing, despite significant factual issues requiring one as per Osborn. The decision was procedurally unfair.
Similar Cases
Karl Oakley, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 292 (Admin)
Russell McPhee, R (on the application) v The Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 1247 (Admin)
Nathaniel Adams v The Parole Board for England and Wales
[2022] EWHC 3406 (Admin)
Brendon Oxendale, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2024] EWHC 2407 (Admin)