Jarvis, R (on the application of) v Parole Board

On an application for re-release after recall, the Parole Board must apply the statutory question whether it is satisfied that continued confinement remains necessary for public protection. It need not compare the prisoner’s present risk with the risk assessed when sentence was imposed. Recall detention remains causally connected with the original sentence where it responds to breach of licence conditions or fresh information indicating that further offending cannot safely be managed in the community. The Board may assess all relevant evidence, including discontinued allegations, conduct on licence, treatment engagement, psychological evidence and proposed release arrangements. A decision based on that material does not breach Article 5 where the statutory test is properly applied.

The claimant was serving an extended sentence for sexual offences against children. After release on licence, his licence was revoked following an allegation of indecent assault and evidence that he had been associating with and touching a child. The allegation was not prosecuted, but the Parole Board considered wider risk evidence and refused re-release, finding that he presented a high risk of re-offending which could not safely be managed in the community.

He sought judicial review, alleging that the Board had adopted the wrong approach under section 44 A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and had breached Article 5. The central issues were whether a comparative assessment against the sentencing risk was required and whether the decision was lawful on the evidence.

1. Application dismissed. The Parole Board’s decision was lawful and did not breach Article 5.
2. Section 44 A(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 required the Board to direct release only if satisfied that confinement was no longer necessary for public protection. The Board therefore had to consider all the evidence before it. It was not required to compare the claimant’s current risk with the risk identified when sentence was imposed.
3. Following R(Sim) v Parole Board and the Home Secretary, detention after recall for breach of licence conditions or fresh fears of further offending remained causally connected with the original conviction and sentence. The original sentence provided the context, but the Board addressed the distinct question of present public protection on different material.
4. The discontinued allegation did not require automatic release. The Board was entitled to consider the claimant’s conduct on licence, his admitted contact with an 11-year-old boy, the evidence of high or very high risk, inconsistencies in his account, failure to undertake offence-focused work, treatment suitability and the proposed community arrangements.
5. The Board had not relied unlawfully on the fact of recall itself. Nor was express reference to the sentencing judge’s remarks necessary where the Board had lawfully discharged its statutory function in the context of the original sentence.