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

Permission to amend judicial-review grounds should be refused where the proposed challenge would have no realistic prospect of success. A decision to maintain a prisoner in category A is rational and lawful where the evidence, including the nature of the offending, the prisoner’s role, criminal history, violence and risk if unlawfully at large, demonstrates a high public risk. The assessment remains fact-sensitive: a murder conviction does not automatically justify category A classification, but a properly informed decision-maker may reach that conclusion where the circumstances establish a serious continuing risk. A superseded challenge that no longer raises a live issue is academic and should be dismissed.

The claimant, a prisoner serving a life sentence for murder, conspiracy to supply drugs and blackmail, challenged the maintenance of his category A classification. He sought permission to amend the grounds to challenge a later decision maintaining that classification. The proposed challenge relied on alleged irrationality and inconsistency between earlier categorisation decisions, and later only on a claimed principle of consistency. By the hearing, the later decision was the effective current decision and the original challenge concerned an academic issue. The court therefore considered whether the proposed challenge had a realistic prospect of success and what should be done with the existing claim.

1. Permission to amend. The court approached the application as if it were a free-standing application for judicial review, asking whether permission would have been granted for the proposed challenge. If not, permission to amend should be refused.
2. Category A classification. The proposed challenge had no realistic prospect of success. The decision to maintain category A classification was clearly rational and lawful. The category A team was entitled to consider the claimant’s murder conviction, his role as organiser, the trial judge’s description of his control and intent, his involvement in serious criminal activity, violence, previous history, conduct in prison and the risk to the public and police if he were unlawfully at large.
3. The court accepted that a person charged with or convicted of murder will not invariably pose a risk to the public sufficient to justify category A classification. The relevant assessment depends on the circumstances. On the facts recorded, any different conclusion would have been perverse.
4. The proposed amended grounds therefore stood no prospect of success, making permission to amend and pursue the judicial-review challenge futile. The existing claim had become entirely academic and was dismissed. The claimant’s publicly funded costs were left for assessment.