Tinney, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board

A Parole Board must give an intelligible explanation of why the risk of reoffending remains too high for release. It must consider the factors specified in the Secretary of State’s directions and explain, in broad terms, the matters pointing towards and against continuing risk. A general reference to serious offending and good custodial behaviour is insufficient where unusual circumstances materially affect risk. Those circumstances may include witness protection, relocation away from former associates and the practical consequences of giving evidence for the Crown. Failure to address such matters and to provide a sufficient reason for the conclusion makes the decision inadequately reasoned and liable to be quashed.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Parole Board’s refusal, by letter dated 1 September 2004, to direct his release on parole from an eight-year sentence. His case involved extensive violent offending, a history of drug misuse, cooperation with the authorities and participation in a protected witness programme. The dossier contained evidence of reform, reduced risk and a detailed police and probation resettlement plan.

The claimant alleged irrationality and failure to take relevant matters into account. The Board relied on the seriousness of the offending, the former drug habit and the absence of evidence reducing risk to a safe level. The central issue was whether the Board’s reasons adequately addressed the effect of the claimant’s exceptional circumstances on the risk of reoffending.

1. The claim succeeded. The Parole Board’s decision was quashed. The matter was to be considered by a differently constituted panel on updated evidence.
2. Under section 32(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and the Secretary of State’s directions, the Board had to focus on the risk to public safety while taking account of the specified matters. These included the nature of the original offending, progress in addressing offending behaviour, the benefit of longer supervision, likely compliance with licence conditions and the resettlement plan.
3. The guidance in R v The Parole Board and The Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Oyston (unreported, 1 March 2000) required an intelligible summary of the reasons. The Board should identify in broad terms the matters pointing towards and against continuing risk and explain why it struck the balance as it did. The court should not adopt a pedantic or nit-picking approach.
4. The Board was entitled to remain sceptical about claims of reform and to regard good custodial behaviour and cooperation as insufficient by themselves. However, it failed to address the real issue: the extent to which giving evidence for the Crown, entering witness protection and resettling away from former haunts and associates reduced the risk of further crime.
5. The court rejected the submission that the decision was necessarily irrational or perverse. It was inadequately reasoned because it omitted highly relevant features and did not sufficiently explain why release was unsafe. The court did not determine whether the drug lapse demonstrated an unacceptable continuing risk; that assessment remained for the Board.