R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte McAvoy (1997) (McAvoy, Ex parte)

Procedural fairness in the annual review of a prisoner's security category does not ordinarily require disclosure of every report or the identities of those supplying information. Fairness is satisfied where the prisoner receives a sufficiently informative gist of the material, enabling meaningful representations, and the reviewing authority remains willing to provide additional information when the circumstances require it.

The content of fairness depends upon the context. A categorisation review is an internal administrative process and differs from a parole decision, which may result directly in release. The prisoner's interests must be assessed alongside the practical requirements of managing dangerous prisoners.

The appellant was serving a 25-year sentence and had remained a Category A prisoner. During his annual security review, the prison service supplied a gist of the reports to be considered. With assistance, he submitted detailed representations. The review committee nevertheless maintained his Category A status, principally because of the seriousness of his offence and the need for further evidence of sustained progress and diminished risk.

Forbes J held that the Secretary of State had no obligation to disclose more than the gist supplied. The prisoner appealed, contending that fairness required copies of all material placed before the review body or, alternatively, the identities of those who provided it, subject to public interest immunity. The central issue was what disclosure procedural fairness required during a prison categorisation review.

Appeal dismissed unanimously.

1. Lord Woolf MR, giving the leading judgment, held that the requirements of procedural fairness depended upon the nature and context of the decision. The serious consequences of Category A status favoured openness, but the court also had to consider the practical requirements of managing prisoners regarded as among the most dangerous in the prison system.

2. A categorisation review differed materially from a parole review. Parole could lead directly to release and involved a body with an independent element. Categorisation was an internal administrative process and a favourable decision merely changed the prisoner's security category. Although categorisation could affect parole, the two processes did not have to employ identical disclosure arrangements.

3. The principles stated in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [1994] 2 AC 531 supported disclosure of the gist of the case that the affected person had to answer. In many categorisation reviews, a sufficiently informative gist would fully protect the prisoner's interests. The gist supplied in this case enabled meaningful and useful representations and disclosed both favourable and adverse matters.

4. Fairness did not establish a general entitlement to copies of the underlying reports or to the names of those who supplied information. Requiring routine full disclosure followed, where necessary, by claims to public interest immunity would impose excessive formality upon this administrative process. The safeguards were sufficient because the authorities were also prepared to consider, in the circumstances of an individual case, whether additional information should be disclosed.

5. Hobhouse LJ agreed that both the procedure followed and the departmental policy complied with the requirements of fairness explained in Doody. Mantell LJ also agreed with the reasons and disposition. The appeal was dismissed, with legal aid taxation for the appellant.

1. Court of Appeal: The court unanimously dismissed the appeal and upheld the conclusion that supplying the gist of the relevant reports, with scope for additional disclosure in an appropriate case, satisfied procedural fairness.
2. High Court, Queen's Bench Division: Forbes J held on 21 March 1997 that the Secretary of State was under no obligation to disclose more than had been disclosed. The appellant had received the gist of the case considered by the review body.