Parratt, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice

For an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment for public protection, the tariff threshold governing a pre-tariff Parole Board review is calculated by reference to the specified or relevant part imposed from the date of sentence. Time spent on remand is excluded. A policy governing prisoners’ custody must be read consistently and transparently, but as a practical communication in its statutory and policy context. A general rule withholding pre-tariff reviews from prisoners whose tariff is below three years is rational and lawful. A mistaken administrative letter promising a review does not create a legitimate expectation where the error is promptly corrected and no practical benefit would result from granting the review.

The claimant was serving an imprisonment for public protection sentence under Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 225. The sentencing judge specified a minimum period of three and a half years, giving credit for 417 days spent on remand. The Secretary of State treated the resulting specified part, two years and 130 days, as below the three-year threshold for a pre-tariff review.

An earlier letter had stated that a paper review would take place, but this was later corrected as an administrative error. The claimant sought judicial review, arguing that the policy included remand time, that an exceptional review should have been considered, and that the letter created a legitimate expectation.

1. Construction of policy. Policy documents affecting the period a prisoner spends in custody must be applied consistently and transparently. Their interpretation is a matter for the court. They should be read practically, in ordinary language, and in the context of the whole document and the relevant statutory scheme, applying First Secretary of State v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 520 and R v Director of Passenger Rail Franchising, Ex parte Save Our Railways and Others [1996] CLC 589.
2. Tariff calculation. In the case of an IPP prisoner, the tariff for deciding whether a pre-tariff review is feasible means the relevant or specified part of the sentence, calculated from the date of sentence. It excludes time spent on remand. The Secretary of State’s interpretation of PSO 4700 and PSO 6010 was therefore correct, rational and lawful.
3. Three-year rule. A pre-tariff review is not usually provided where the tariff, excluding remand time, is below three years. The shorter the minimum period, the less purpose there is in an earlier review, particularly where insufficient time exists for meaningful risk-reduction work. The policy’s general rule did not require a separate exceptional consideration on the facts, which disclosed progress but no exceptional circumstances.
4. Legitimate expectation. The mistaken letter did not create a legitimate expectation that a review would be held. The mistake was corrected promptly after discovery, the claimant challenged the position only later, and the end-of-minimum-term review was already well advanced. No useful purpose would have been served by ordering a pre-tariff review.
5. The claim was dismissed. Permission to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal would provide no practical benefit to the claimant and would otherwise be academic.