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

In reviewing Category A prisoner re-categorisation, the court must assess current and future risk rather than rely solely on the seriousness of the index offence. A prisoner must be placed in the lowest security category consistent with security and control. A decision-maker cannot rationally require evidence of reduced risk through a course or intervention that is unavailable or unsuitable. Where the decision-maker’s concerns cannot fairly be addressed in writing, and an oral hearing would improve the information available and enable meaningful representations, procedural fairness may require one even without exceptional circumstances. Reasons for refusing re-categorisation must identify sufficiently clearly what the prisoner must do to demonstrate reduced risk.

The claimant, a Category A prisoner convicted of conspiracy to murder, challenged decisions of the Director of High Security refusing to re-categorise him to Category B and refusing him an oral hearing. The claimant relied on extensive positive prison evidence, including assessments that his current and future risk was low, while the Director relied principally on the seriousness of the offending, the sentencing judge’s findings, and the absence of convincing evidence of changed attitudes.

The claim raised questions about rationality, adequacy of reasons, and procedural fairness. In particular, the court had to determine whether an oral hearing was necessary to address an apparent impasse between the Director and the prison-based professional assessments.

1. The claim succeeded in part. The Director’s conclusion that the claimant’s risk had not sufficiently diminished was not irrational on the information available. The seriousness of the offence and the sentencing judge’s findings provided rational grounds for concern.
2. The Director was nevertheless required to consider current and future risk, not merely the gravity of the index offence. The governing framework required prisoners to be placed in the lowest category consistent with security and control. A decision-maker must ask the right question and take reasonable steps to obtain the relevant information.
3. The reasons were inadequate. They did not explain sufficiently what the claimant could do to demonstrate reduced risk. The Director appeared to rely on further work, although no suitable risk-reduction course was available. It was not rational to require proof by a particular unavailable means.
4. There was no distinct requirement to establish exceptional circumstances before an oral hearing could be ordered. The question was whether, on the facts, an oral hearing was necessary for a fair disposal. Relevant considerations included the importance of the interests at stake, the prospect that oral evidence or questioning would improve decision-making, the need to resolve misunderstandings or address the decision-maker’s concerns, and practical considerations such as cost and efficiency.
5. This was an exceptional case in the ordinary sense. The claimant faced an impasse: the Director required further evidence, while the prison assessments were uniformly positive and no suitable course was available. An oral hearing could enable the claimant to address the Director’s concerns, allow the relevant professionals to explain their assessments, and permit the Director to test the claimant’s account. The refusal of an oral hearing was therefore unlawful. The matter required reconsideration through an oral hearing; re-categorisation itself did not follow automatically.