Bell v Secretary of State for Justice

A pre-tariff review decision is not irrational merely because the prisoner has completed earlier targets or because outstanding work consists of assessments. The decision-maker may adopt a holistic approach, balancing favourable matters against current risk evidence and the desirability of consolidation in the prisoner’s present conditions. The court reviews whether the correct threshold was applied and whether the resulting assessment falls outside the range of rational decisions. A balanced decision based on relevant favourable and adverse factors will not ordinarily be quashed for irrationality.

The claimant challenged the decision of a pre-tariff SIFT review meeting held on 23 May 2011. The meeting decided not to refer his case to the Parole Board for consideration of transfer to open conditions.

The claimant had completed all targets set at his previous review and had improved his behaviour. The meeting nevertheless identified outstanding work concerning future violent behaviour and previous sexual offending. It also considered a recent risk assessment and the fact that he had only recently arrived at a Category C establishment. The central issue was whether the decision not to refer the case was irrational.

1. Challenge dismissed. The decision not to send the claimant’s case forward to the Parole Board was upheld. The formal order recorded that the appeal was dismissed.
2. Under PSI 33/2009, paragraph 2.3, the relevant question was whether there was evidence supporting a move to open conditions such that a Parole Board panel might reasonably conclude that the claimant could be safely transferred. The court found that this was the correct, albeit low, threshold and that it had been applied.
3. The claimant’s completed targets and improved behaviour were relevant matters in his favour. However, the review had to be considered as a whole. The meeting was entitled to take account of the recent OASys risk assessment, the remaining need to assess future risks of violent behaviour and explore previous sexual offending, and the claimant’s recent arrival at a Category C establishment.
4. The review adopted a holistic approach. It balanced favourable and adverse factors and concluded that a period of consolidation was desirable before considering a move to open conditions. The court could not characterise that balancing exercise as irrational.
5. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs incurred on and after 18 November 2011. There was otherwise no order as to costs, subject to detailed assessment of the claimant’s publicly funded costs.

Not stated in the judgment.