Osborn v The Parole Board

An oral hearing before the Parole Board is not required in every case. The question is whether, fairly assessed in the factual and procedural context, an oral hearing could contribute something relevant to the present or a future decision on release. Such a hearing will generally be required where material facts are reasonably disputed, an explanation or mitigation may affect risk, an assessment requires probing, or relevant issues concerning character or mental state require oral examination. A mere allegation of mental illness does not itself require an oral hearing. Where psychiatric concerns are credibly raised, the initial fair step is ordinarily expert examination and assessment. The Board may refuse an oral hearing where the prisoner has been informed of the material relied upon, has had an adequate opportunity to respond, and the hearing would add nothing relevant.

The claimant challenged the Parole Board’s refusal to grant him an oral hearing concerning its decision not to recommend his release following recall to prison. The Board had considered a probation report recording breaches of licence conditions, concerning behaviour, risk of serious harm, and the absence of a current psychiatric assessment. The claimant argued that disputed facts, alleged mental-health issues, and procedural fairness required an oral hearing. The central issue was whether fairness required the Board to hear him orally despite his opportunity to make written representations.

1. The claim was dismissed. The refusal of an oral hearing was not irrational, unlawful or wholly unreasonable.
2. The governing question was whether, at the end of the process, fairness required the prisoner’s presence, personally or through a representative, because an oral hearing could contribute something relevant to the assessment of risk or to a future review. The Board’s task was to assess risk on release, not to determine the validity of the recall.
3. An oral hearing would ordinarily be required where facts relied upon against release were open to reasonable dispute, where the validity or significance of an explanation for a breach required assessment, or where an officer’s assessment required further probing. The hearing could also be relevant where character, mental state, personality, maturity or reliability materially affected dangerousness.
4. Written information may be sufficient where the prisoner knows the matters relied upon and has had a proper opportunity to respond. The Board should consider the reasons advanced for requesting an oral hearing and whether the hearing could assist either the present decision or future reviews. Cases in which procedural fairness requires a hearing despite no relevant contribution from the prisoner would be exceptional.
5. A claim of mental illness, or a recommendation for psychiatric assessment, does not by itself require an oral hearing. Where the issue is credibly raised, the first step is ordinarily a psychiatric examination and report. An oral hearing may later be required if relevant expert disagreement or an issue concerning mental state arises.
6. Here, the claimant had received the probation report and had an opportunity to address it. The relevant facts were either undisputed or only minimally disputed, and the requested hearing would not have added information relevant to risk or future decisions. The Board was therefore entitled to refuse it.

Permission to apply for judicial review had previously been declined by HHJ Pelling sitting as a High Court Judge. The Administrative Court then determined the substantive challenge.