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

When reviewing a Parole Board decision, the court examines whether the Board rationally assessed the risk of reoffending and balanced that risk against the benefits of early release. The Board may consider alternative explanations for an offender’s conduct, but procedural fairness requires a material new issue to be raised with the parties. A failure to do so will not justify quashing the decision where the Board also assessed the risk on the basis advanced by the offender and the procedural flaw could not have affected the outcome. Where no validated psychological methodology exists for a particular class of offenders, the Board may properly decline to treat expert risk assessments as materially assisting its decision.

The claimants were serving long sentences for conspiracy to cause explosions and challenged the Parole Board’s decisions of 1 October 2007 refusing to recommend release on licence. They argued that the Board had irrationally and unfairly questioned whether the offences were politically motivated, had misunderstood the psychological evidence, and had relied on irrelevant considerations. Permission for judicial review was granted and the claims were then heard on their merits. The central issues were whether the Board had lawfully assessed risk, dealt with the expert evidence, and complied with procedural fairness.

1. Claims dismissed. The Parole Board’s decisions were neither unlawful nor ultra vires.
2. Under Part II of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, the Board was required to assess the risk of further offending during the period before automatic release and balance that risk against the benefits of early release and rehabilitation.
3. The Board was entitled to consider both political and non-political motivations. Although the possibility of a non-political motivation should have been raised at the hearing, the flaw was not fatal because the Board also assessed risk on the alternative basis that the offences had been politically motivated. That assessment produced an unacceptable risk and the procedural failure could not have affected the outcome.
4. The Board was entitled to conclude that the psychological evidence did not materially assist it. The evidence showed that no risk-assessment methodology had been validated for politically motivated offenders. The Board did not ignore the reports, but properly took account of the impressions formed by psychologists who had interviewed the claimants.
5. The Board was entitled to focus on each claimant’s perception of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict when assessing the risk of politically motivated reoffending. The objective merits of that perception were not determinative.
6. The factual error concerning whether Dr Beck had interviewed Ms Alami could not have affected the result. Permission to appeal was refused, and no order for costs was made.