O'Sullivan v Parole Board

A tribunal is entitled to reject expert evidence, including unanimous recommendations, where it has the necessary expertise. It must, however, give full and appropriate reasons for doing so. A decision is unlawful where material evidence is inaccurately recorded or fails to be reflected in the reasoning, particularly where the error bears on the assessment of risk and the decision whether to transfer a prisoner to open conditions. The court may quash the decision and remit the matter for fresh consideration.

The claimant, detained at Her Majesty’s Pleasure following a murder conviction, sought judicial review of the Parole Board’s decision refusing immediate release or transfer from Category C conditions to open conditions. The Board accepted that several previous concerns had been addressed but considered that the claimant had not demonstrated sufficient stability or ability to manage stress and emotion.

The claimant argued that the Board had failed to explain its departure from the recommendations of the expert witnesses and had inaccurately recorded material evidence. The central issue was whether the Board’s reasons lawfully justified its decision.

1. Judicial review granted. The Parole Board’s decision of 7 May 2008 was quashed. The matter was remitted to the Board for a fresh review within a reasonable time and no later than 25 September 2009.
2. A properly constituted tribunal with relevant expertise may disagree with all the expert evidence before it. That discretion does not dispense with the duty to give full and appropriate reasons for rejecting a substantial body of evidence.
3. The Board’s reasons did not adequately explain why the further work required to address stress, emotional management and related risks could not be undertaken in open conditions, despite the evidence that transfer was appropriate.
4. The Board’s account of the evidence of material witnesses, including the Lifer Manager, the Seconded Probation Officer and a forensic psychologist, was materially inaccurate. The witnesses subsequently confirmed that their views had not been accurately represented, including their support for release or transfer to open conditions.
5. Those failures meant that the Board had not properly addressed the evidence or provided a rational basis for its conclusion that the claimant should remain in closed conditions. The claimant’s application therefore succeeded.

The judgment noted that the proceedings had not been properly defended in time, but the order was based on the cogent substantive case and the unlawfulness of the Board’s decision.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. No appellate history is stated in the judgment.