Saxena, R (on the application of) v Prison Service

The decision whether to release a serving prisoner on home detention curfew is entrusted to the Home Detention Curfew Board. Judicial review is unavailable where the Board carefully considers the issue and reaches a conclusion legally open to it on the evidence. Relevant considerations may include the likelihood of breach, the risk of reoffending, the prisoner’s mental state and willingness to comply with licence conditions. A disagreement with the Board’s assessment does not itself establish an arguable public law error.

The applicant renewed his appeals against Ouseley J’s dismissal of his renewed application for judicial review. The application challenged the refusal to release him on home detention curfew when he became eligible in January 2001. By the time the judicial review was heard, he had been released after completing half his sentence, so the judge considered the original relief academic. The applicant sought to broaden the challenge by contending that his continued detention before release had been unlawful. The central issue was whether the Home Detention Curfew Board’s decision was arguably unlawful and susceptible to judicial review.

1. Permission refused. The Home Detention Curfew Board, rather than the court, was entrusted with the decision whether to release a prisoner lawfully serving a sentence on home detention curfew.
2. The Board had considered the question carefully. Its material indicated a likelihood that the applicant might breach the curfew and a risk of reoffending. It was also entitled to take account of concerns about his mental state and whether he would co-operate with the conditions of his licence.
3. The Board had found the proposed home address suitable. The applicant’s contrary understanding resulted from misreading the Board’s handwritten comments. His objections to the Board’s assessment did not disclose an error of law or another arguable basis for judicial review.
4. The decision was legally open to the Board and could not arguably be challenged by judicial review. The fact that the relief originally sought had already been achieved also meant that no remedy could be granted in relation to that issue.

Order: Permission to appeal refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The renewed appeals from Ouseley J’s decision were refused. Permission to appeal was refused.
• Administrative Court: Ouseley J dismissed the renewed application for judicial review; an earlier paper application had also been dismissed.