Kitto, R (on the application of) v Parole Board & Anor

A Parole Board must assess risk on the basis of all material before it and may depart from professional reports, provided its conclusion is rational and properly reached. Its decision letter must give an intelligible summary of the reasoning, sufficient to show that the application was fairly considered. A material factual error which causes the Board to assess a risk that does not exist invalidates the decision, particularly where it affects the overall weighing of risk. The court must respect the Board’s expertise but may quash a decision founded on an erroneous premise.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Parole Board’s refusal to direct his release on licence. The Board relied, among other matters, on concerns about his conditional university place, returning to live with his mother, and continuing problems with authority, threatening behaviour and control.

The claimant argued that the decision was irrational, unreasonable and unlawful because it misinterpreted the evidence. The court considered the Board’s decision letter, a later explanatory letter and evidence from the Board’s chairman.

1. General principles. Under section 32(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and the Home Secretary’s Directions issued under section 32(6), the Parole Board had to assess the risk of further offending and whether that risk was acceptable, balancing public and rehabilitative benefits. It was entitled to depart from the views of report writers because it had the expertise and overall perspective required to assess the material as a whole.
2. The court’s task was to determine whether the conclusion was rational and properly reached. The decision letter had to provide an intelligible summary of the Board’s reasoning. The approach stated in R v Parole Board ex p. Owen John Oyston, at paragraph 46, was applied.
3. University place. The Board incorrectly treated the claimant’s university place as conditional on examination results. Its concern about relapse following failure in the examinations was therefore founded on a risk which did not exist. That error affected the assessment and weighing of risk generally and was sufficient to invalidate the decision.
4. Residence with mother. The evidence did not provide a proper basis for concluding that returning to live with the claimant’s mother was inappropriate. The reports indicated that this formed part of the therapeutic process after release.
5. Continuing problems. There was material capable of supporting the Board’s findings concerning authority figures, threatening and controlling behaviour, and continuing inappropriate attitudes. Those conclusions were adequately expressed in the decision letter, so this ground failed.
6. The decision was set aside and the matter was directed to be reconsidered. Leave to appeal was refused. A full assessment of the claimant’s publicly funded costs was permitted.

The judgment was a first-instance decision on an application for judicial review. The permission application had previously been adjourned by Mr Justice Stanley Burnton for further evidence, but no lower court judgment is stated.