Allen, R (on the application of) v Parole Board

A Parole Board decision must be read as a whole and in its context. A single infelicitous sentence does not establish an error of law when the decision, properly understood, shows that the Board resolved conflicting accounts and applied the appropriate standard of proof. Findings of licence breaches are lawful where supported by evidence and adequate reasons. In assessing residence, the Board may find a breach where the evidence shows regular living at an unapproved address, rather than merely occasional stays. An employment condition is breached where work is undertaken without the required approval or without regular notification to the supervising officer.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Parole Board’s decision dated 23 December 2008 refusing release under section 28 of the Crime and Sentences Act 1998. Permission was granted on paper because it was arguable that the Board had applied the wrong standard of proof.

The claimant challenged the Board’s treatment of an alleged domestic violence incident and its findings that he had breached residence and employment conditions in his licence. The central issues were whether the Board’s decision disclosed an incorrect approach to proof and whether the findings of breach were irrational or inadequately reasoned.

1. Domestic violence finding. Read in isolation, the Board’s statement that there was evidence of domestic violence could suggest an insufficient standard of proof. The decision had to be read as a whole, applying a common-sense approach rather than a literalistic reading akin to statutory construction.
2. The Board had been faced with conflicting accounts. In context, its rejection of the claimant’s explanation showed that it resolved the conflict and made a finding of domestic violence, rather than merely conducting a risk assessment or treating the existence of evidence as conclusive. No error of law was established.
3. Residence condition. The evidence showed that the claimant was living with his father three or four days each week. The Board was entitled to regard this as a breach of the condition requiring residence only at a place approved by the probation officer. Its reasons, including the finding that he stayed regularly without notification and knew approval was required, were adequate and the conclusion was not irrational.
4. Employment condition. The evidence supported the Board’s finding that approval had not been given for general odd-job work and that the claimant had admitted he should have provided fuller details of his work plans. The reasons that he had not regularly informed his supervising officer of his work commitments were adequate.
5. The judicial review claim was dismissed on all three grounds. Publicly funded costs were assessed, and permission to appeal was refused.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Permission to apply for judicial review was granted on paper on 12 June 2009. The claim was dismissed on all three grounds, and permission to appeal was refused.