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

A Parole Board may determine risk and insight by evaluating the evidence as a whole, including a prisoner’s oral evidence and conduct, without applying the strict evidential rules of a criminal trial. It is not required to adopt the conclusions of psychologists or psychiatrists. Its task is to protect the public by balancing the risks and benefits of release or transfer, whereas experts are necessarily focused on the prisoner. A detailed decision which refers to and evaluates relevant expert evidence will not be treated as a checklist exercise merely because it does not mention every evidential nuance.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Parole Board’s decision not to recommend his transfer to open prison conditions. He argued that the Board should have deferred the hearing until his psychologist could give oral evidence, had failed to take proper account of the psychologist’s report, and was not entitled to reject expert conclusions concerning relocation and risk.

The Board had considered the report, heard the claimant’s evidence, and concluded that he lacked sufficient insight into his offending and continued to pose risks inconsistent with open conditions. The central issues were whether the Board acted within its discretion in proceeding without the psychologist and whether its evaluation of the evidence was lawful.

1. The application was dismissed. The decision not to move the claimant to open conditions was lawful.
2. The Parole Board had discretion to decide whether the psychologist’s report was sufficient or whether oral evidence was required. The claimant had chosen to proceed with the hearing after the psychologist’s unavailability became known. The Board expressly considered the report and stated that it had taken it fully into account.
3. The Board was entitled to assess the claimant’s account of the incident leading to his prosecution and to doubt his explanation. It was not bound by the strict rules of evidence applicable in criminal proceedings. Brooks v The Parole Board [2004] EWCA Civ 80 confirmed that, where circumstances permitted, the Board could make decisions about behaviour on evidence falling short of the criminal standard of evidential admissibility.
4. The Board was entitled to reach a different conclusion from the experts about relocation. Its function was to assess public risk and balance the benefit of a less constrained environment against the risk of harm. Psychologists and psychiatrists had a different, properly claimant-centred role.
5. The Board’s decision was detailed and coherent. Judicial review did not require every nuance of the evidence to be repeated in the decision. The Board had identified the claimant’s lack of insight, his tendency to shift responsibility to his victims, and the conclusion that the risks outweighed the benefits of open conditions.