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

A Parole Board decision recalling a prisoner may be quashed where relevant material was not disclosed and the reasons fail to address a central contention. A licence condition requiring an offender to address sexual offending behaviour must be enforced through requirements that are reasonable in the circumstances. It may be reasonable to require engagement with treatment addressing responsibility for offending, even where the prisoner’s account of guilt has fluctuated. The court need not decide whether recall was substantively justified where the decision-making process was unfair. The proper remedy may be reconsideration by the Board on all relevant material, including the prisoner’s subsequent conduct.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Parole Board’s decision dated 1 October 2003 rejecting his representations against recall to prison. He had been released on licence after serving two-thirds of a sentence for sexual offences against his step-daughter. His licence required compliance with reasonable requirements imposed to address his sexual offending behaviour.

He was recalled after failing to participate in a Sex Offender Treatment Programme. The Board relied on that non-compliance and the risk of further offending. The claimant argued that the relevant requirement was unreasonable because he denied guilt and that the Board had failed to disclose a report concerning his conduct on the programme or give adequate reasons. The central issue was whether the recall decision had been reached fairly and with adequate consideration of the reasonableness of the requirement.

1. The claim succeeded. The Parole Board’s decision was quashed and the matter was to be reconsidered in the course of its imminent review.
2. A licence condition requiring compliance with reasonable requirements directed towards addressing sexual offending behaviour was lawful. Following The Queen on the application of Wilkes v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] EWHC Admin 210, a requirement must itself be reasonably imposed. It could be unreasonable to require an offender to admit guilt, or to undertake a programme available only to those who admitted guilt, where the offender maintained a denial.
3. Whether a particular requirement was reasonable depended on the facts. The claimant’s fluctuating accounts, including admissions and denials of different conduct, meant that the Board could reasonably have concluded that requiring him to discuss his offending and accept responsibility was not unreasonable. Automatic release after two-thirds of the sentence did not prevent lawful licence conditions designed to reduce the risk of further offending.
4. The process was nevertheless unfair. The claimant had not been given the report describing his failure to participate in the treatment programme and therefore had no proper opportunity to make representations about it. The Board’s reasons also failed to explain how it dealt with his central contention that his denial of guilt made compliance impossible or unreasonable.
5. The court did not decide that recall was necessarily unjustified. The Board was required to reconsider the matter on the disclosed material, together with relevant evidence of the claimant’s conduct since recall and his current risk. The claimant was awarded three-quarters of his costs, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.