Hamblett, R (on the application of) v HM Prison Frankland

A prison may make enhanced status conditional on a prisoner addressing his offending behaviour and completing courses identified in a sentence plan. Where a convicted sexual offender persistently denies guilt and is consequently unsuitable for a sexual offenders treatment programme, refusal to assess or admit him to that programme, and refusal of enhanced status for failure to meet the relevant target, may be lawful and reasonable. The court will not substitute its own assessment of a prisoner’s suitability for a cognitive skills course where the Prison Service has substantial psychological evidence supporting the course. A public authority is not required to implement a recommendation founded on a material factual misapprehension, particularly where the misapprehension was caused by the claimant.

The claimant, a prisoner serving a 15-year sentence for sexual offences, sought judicial review of the Governor’s refusal to grant him enhanced status. The refusal was based on his failure to comply with sentence-plan targets, including assessment for a Sexual Offenders Treatment Plan and completion of an Enhanced Thinking Skills Course.

He disputed his guilt and maintained that he was an appellant, although no appeal or related proceedings were pending. He also challenged the Prison Service’s handling of recommendations made by the Prison Ombudsman. The issues were whether the refusal of enhanced status was unlawful or unreasonable and whether the Ombudsman’s recommendations had been complied with.

1. The claim for judicial review was refused.

2. The court followed R(Potter and ors) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] EWHC Admin 1041, accepting that it was lawful and reasonable to deny enhanced status to a prisoner convicted of sexual offences where persistent denial of guilt made him unsuitable for a Sexual Offenders Treatment Plan. Enhanced status could properly operate as a reward for addressing offending behaviour.

3. The Prison Service was entitled to treat the claimant as unsuitable for assessment or participation in the treatment programme because the programme required him to address and accept responsibility for his offending behaviour. His persistent denial meant that he had not achieved the relevant sentence-plan target.

4. The refusal to undertake the Enhanced Thinking Course was also a lawful and reasonable basis for refusing enhanced status. The Prison Ombudsman’s evidence showed substantial grounds, supported by psychological evidence, for considering the course suitable. The court would not treat the claimant’s unsupported assertion of unsuitability as sufficient to establish irrationality.

5. The Ombudsman’s recommendations had been accepted and implemented so far as they required the report to be placed on the claimant’s file and considered by the Sentence Planning Board. The further recommendation concerning guidance for appellants needing a treatment programme was based on the mistaken belief that the claimant was an appellant. It therefore had no practical application and did not require implementation.

6. The Sentence Review Board had abundant grounds for maintaining the claimant’s targets, category B classification and standard status, including his refusal of the Enhanced Thinking Course and his persistent denial of guilt.