Woods, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice & Anor

Where an extended-sentence prisoner is recalled during the licence period, detention must retain a sufficient causal connection with the protective purpose of that period. A recall based solely on a dishonesty offence, without evidence of a risk of serious harm from violent offending, is unlawful.

Quashing the recall does not automatically deprive the Parole Board of jurisdiction. The Board must still assess whether release is required having regard to public safety, including any supervening evidence of a relevant risk of serious harm.

The claimant was serving an extended sentence imposed after convictions for robbery and serious wounding. Following release, his licence was revoked and he was recalled after conviction for vehicle interference. The Secretary of State accepted that the recall decision should be quashed because its reasons did not comply with R (Sim) v Parole Board [2003] EWHC 152 (Admin).

The Parole Board nevertheless maintained that the claimant could lawfully remain detained pending its review and recommendation. The central issue was whether an unlawful recall automatically invalidated the Board’s subsequent decisions, and whether the Board had properly assessed the risk of serious harm.

1. Recall decision. The claimant was entitled to a declaration quashing the Secretary of State’s recall decision. Under Criminal Justice Act 2003, the extended licence period served a protective, rather than punitive, purpose. Applying R (Sim) v Parole Board [2003] EWHC 152 (Admin), detention during that period required a sufficient causal connection with the sentencing objective. The further offence was one of dishonesty and there was no suggestion that it involved a risk of serious harm through violent offending.
2. Parole Board jurisdiction. The unlawful recall did not make the claimant’s subsequent detention or the Board’s decisions a nullity. In accordance with the guidance in R (Gulliver) v The Parole Board [2007] EWCA Civ 1386, the Board retained standing to consider release. Its task remained to assess public safety, not merely to revisit procedural defects in the recall process.
3. Supervening risk. A prisoner recalled in error is not necessarily entitled to immediate release if intervening evidence establishes a real and relevant risk of serious harm from violent offending. The Board had considered the claimant’s previous convictions, recent offending, behaviour in custody, risk assessments, release arrangements and progress in custody. It was entitled to conclude that release would present a risk of serious harm.
4. Procedure and delay. The delay in bringing the claim did not bar relief because the lawfulness of detention was exceptionally serious and the prejudice to the Board was minor. The Board had conducted two reviews, the claimant had an opportunity to make representations, and an oral hearing had been arranged. There was no breach of article 5 rights.
5. The claim concerning the Parole Board’s decisions was dismissed. The claimant’s continued detention remained lawful under section 255D of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. The judgment does not state any prior appellate decision.