Rundle v Parole Board & Anor

Permission for judicial review requires an arguable ground. A challenge to a temporary-licence condition will fail where the condition was authorised by rule 9 of the Prison Rules, was reasonable in the circumstances, and the alleged breach and subsequent decision-making disclose no arguable irrationality or other public-law error. The court will not grant relief to implement an asserted release decision where the underlying challenge is unarguable.

The applicant, serving a mandatory life sentence for murder, had been released on licence and later recalled. The Parole Board recommended re-release in February 1999. While the Secretary of State considered that recommendation, the applicant accepted a temporary-licence condition prohibiting employment in the antiques trade. After an alleged breach, he was recalled. The Secretary of State declined to accept the recommendation, and the Parole Board later did not recommend re-release.

Permission for judicial review was refused by Latham J on paper and by Newman J on renewal. Before the Court of Appeal, the applicant challenged the Home Office’s alleged intervention, the Parole Board’s alleged failure to decide his release, the handling of the condition and delay. The central issue was whether any complaint disclosed an arguable ground for permission.

Application dismissed. Lord Justice Kennedy held that the material before the court disclosed no arguable ground for judicial review and no basis for granting permission to proceed.

1. The prison service was entitled under rule 9 of the Prison Rules to impose a condition when exercising discretionary powers concerning a temporary licence. In the circumstances, a prohibition on employment in the antiques trade was reasonable because the applicant had previous convictions relating to handling stolen goods while working in that trade. The condition therefore disclosed no arguable irrationality.
2. The alleged breach of the condition was relevant to the Secretary of State’s consideration of the Parole Board’s recommendation. The prison authorities were entitled, and in practical terms required, to report the matter so that it could be taken into account. The Secretary of State did not accept the recommendation, and the Parole Board subsequently reconsidered the case and did not recommend re-release.
3. The applicant’s complaints about intervention, failure to decide and delay did not establish an arguable public-law error. There was consequently no basis for implementing an asserted release decision as if the Home Office had not intervened. The later removal of the condition from future temporary licences did not alter the result.
4. The application was formally dismissed.

• High Court: Latham J refused permission on paper on 15 February 2000. Newman J refused the renewed application after an oral hearing on 14 April 2000.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): the application was considered on paper and at further hearings before Sedley LJ and Schiemann LJ, with additional information obtained. Kennedy LJ refused permission and dismissed the application.