Bulled, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Home Department

On an application for permission to challenge a refusal of parole, the court examines whether the proposed grounds disclose any realistic prospect of success. The Parole Board may treat previous convictions as relevant to the assessment of risk, including convictions for offences committed abroad, although subsidiary matters need not determine the decision. It must consider relevant medical material, but medical evidence does not require release where the Board’s principal concern is continuing risk of reoffending. The Board must assume the correctness of the conviction for which the prisoner is serving sentence. It is not required to assess the prospects of that conviction being overturned in other proceedings.

The applicant, a British citizen resident in the United States, was serving an eight-year sentence imposed after convictions for rape and two counts of indecent assault. The Parole Board refused release on licence, concluding that the risk of sexual reoffending remained too high.

Newman J refused permission to apply for judicial review. The applicant renewed his application before the Court of Appeal, challenging the Board’s reliance on United States convictions for dishonesty, its treatment of medical and psychiatric evidence, and its failure to take account of his proposed challenge to the 1996 convictions. The central issue was whether any ground disclosed a realistic prospect of success.

1. The renewed application was refused. The applicant had not shown any realistic prospect of succeeding on any proposed ground.

2. The Parole Board’s reasons showed that it had taken account of the applicant’s continued denial of the sexual offences, but had not treated that denial as conclusive. Its assessment was based on the applicant’s conduct as a whole, including his lack of acceptance of responsibility, limited engagement with offending-related work, lack of insight, and the continuing risk identified in the assessment reports.

3. The United States convictions for dishonesty were only a subsidiary part of the Board’s reasoning. Their consideration therefore did not provide an arguable ground for judicial review.

4. The medical evidence, including the reference to lithium treatment and its possible effect on libido, had been before the Board. The medical officer identified no medical or psychiatric contraindication to parole, but remained concerned that the applicant had not addressed his sexual offending behaviour. The evidence did not undermine the Board’s risk assessment.

5. The Board was not entitled to assess the prospects of the 1996 convictions being set aside. Applying Oyston [2000] EWCA Crim 3552 at para 43, it had to assume the correctness of any conviction. The application for permission to appeal was accordingly refused.

• High Court, Administrative Court: Newman J refused permission to apply for judicial review on 12 April 2000.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): the renewed application for permission to appeal was refused.