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

Judicial review of a Parole Board decision is concerned with lawfulness, not the substitution of the court’s assessment of risk. The Board may weigh the risk of reoffending and harm against the benefits of early release and community support. Its reasons need not address every consideration expressly, provided they show that the substance of the relevant issues was addressed and explain the decision sufficiently to establish its lawfulness. A decision refusing release is not irrational merely because the court considers that release, or deferral pending suitable accommodation, might have been preferable. Where substantial material supports a high risk of reoffending, the threshold for establishing irrationality remains demanding, even though heightened scrutiny is appropriate where liberty is at stake.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Parole Board’s refusal to direct his early release and of additional conditions imposed for his non-parole licence. He had a long history of acquisitive offending connected with heroin dependency. Prison and probation reports supported release into suitable supported accommodation, while also identifying his vulnerability to relapse and his difficulty coping with open prison conditions.

The Board relied on his offending history, risk assessments, the relapse risk demonstrated at Sudbury open prison, and the absence of confirmed resettlement arrangements. It concluded that the risk remained too high to be safely managed in the community. The claimant alleged that the Board had treated his antecedent history and accommodation position as determinative, failed to consider deferral, failed to consider the benefits of release and recommended licence conditions, and acted irrationally.

1. Application dismissed. The Parole Board, not the reviewing court, must weigh the relevant considerations, including the risk of reoffending, the risk of harm to the public, and the possible benefits of early release and community support.
2. The Board did not treat the claimant’s antecedent history as conclusive. It considered the OGRS and OASys assessments, his experience in open conditions, and the prison and probation reports. Its adverse assessment of risk was a matter for the Board.
3. The Board had power to defer its decision while suitable accommodation was arranged, but the evidence showed no failure to appreciate that power. The Board was entitled to conclude that risk, rather than the unconfirmed accommodation arrangements alone, made early release inappropriate.
4. The Board was required to give reasons, but it need not address every matter expressly. It was sufficient that the decision showed that the substance of the issues had been considered and explained why release was refused. The benefits of release were implicit in the Board’s consideration of the probation reports and its conclusion that risk outweighed the recommendations.
5. The recommended licence conditions were substantially addressed by the additional requirement that the claimant comply with directions intended to tackle drug misuse and prolific offending behaviour. There was no unlawful failure to consider them.
6. The decision was not irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable. Even applying heightened scrutiny because liberty and continued custody were involved, the substantial material indicating high risk and the claimant’s failure to cope with open conditions made the irrationality threshold insurmountable.

The claim was dismissed. A legal aid assessment was sought.