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

A Parole Board may assess risk by reference to conduct occurring after release, including conduct which did not result in criminal conviction, provided the evidence rationally bears on continuing dangerousness. The court reviews whether the Board was entitled to make its factual findings and whether a sufficient causal connection exists between the index offence, the later conduct and the asserted risk to life or limb. It does not decide the parole merits afresh. Where the Board has heard the evidence and its findings are reasonably available, its conclusion falls within its discretionary area and will not be disturbed merely because another assessment, including a less restrictive licence condition, might have been possible.

The claimant was a life sentence prisoner convicted of murder and released on life licence. He was recalled after being charged with causing grievous bodily harm with intent following an incident at a nightclub. He was acquitted, but the Parole Board concluded, on the evidence before it, that his conduct and subsequent failure to report or seek guidance demonstrated a continuing substantial risk to life and limb. It refused further release on licence.

The claimant sought judicial review, arguing that the Board had found no rational causal connection between the later incident and the index offence, and that continued detention was disproportionate and irrational. The central issue was whether the Board was entitled to find a sufficient link between the two events.

1. Application dismissed. The court was not required to decide whether release was merited. Its task was to determine whether the Parole Board was entitled to reach its conclusion on the evidence and within its discretion.
2. The approach stated in Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Michael Albert Benson was applicable: the relevant risk was risk of dangerousness, namely risk to life or limb, and an allegation which falls short of the criminal burden of proof may nevertheless be material, although remote or weak allegations should be disregarded where they shed no light on continuing dangerousness.
3. The Board was entitled to reject the claimant’s account after hearing his evidence and considering the police information. It could find that he had consumed more alcohol than admitted, entered a heated confrontation despite available security staff, failed to seek help, left the scene and concealed his whereabouts, and failed to inform his probation officer.
4. Those findings rationally connected the later incident with the risk factors in the index offence, including alcohol and violence. The claimant had confronted a violent situation, failed to use learned alternatives to violence and remained affected by an unresolved alcohol problem. The Board was therefore entitled to conclude that the life sentence could not safely be managed in the community for the time being and that he represented a substantial risk to life and limb.
5. The conclusion was neither disproportionate nor irrational. It fell within the Board’s area of discretion, and the court would not interfere simply because a different response, such as an alcohol-related licence condition, might have been available.

The claim was dismissed. Legal aid costs were to be assessed. Permission to appeal was refused.