Hassett & Anor v Secretary of State for Justice

Procedural fairness does not require an oral hearing for every decision affecting prison conditions. The need for an oral hearing depends on the function of the decision, the importance of what is at stake, and the facts of the individual case. The guidance in Osborn and Booth concerning Parole Board hearings does not automatically extend to internal prison categorisation decisions. A prisoner’s written representations, legal representation, and access to expert evidence may provide meaningful participation. A disputed expert issue will not necessarily require an oral hearing where the decision-making panel has relevant expertise and the prisoner could make no useful personal contribution. Long detention and expiry of the tariff are important factors, but are not determinative.

Two judicial review claims were heard together. The claimants challenged decisions by the Secretary of State’s Category A Review Team refusing them oral hearings concerning their continued classification in Category A, the highest prison security category.

Both claimants relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Osborn and Booth, arguing that disputes in expert evidence, the importance of their continued categorisation, and their inability to demonstrate reduced risk made an oral hearing necessary. The central issue was whether the procedural fairness principles applicable to the Parole Board when considering release also applied to an internal prison body determining security categorisation.

1. The claims were dismissed. The court could intervene only if the refusals of oral hearings were unfair or unreasonable.

2. The guidance in Osborn and Booth concerned the Parole Board’s functions in determining release or transfer to open conditions. The Parole Board is an independent body dealing with release from detention and is a court for article 5 purposes. The Category A Review Team is an internal administrative body assessing the risk to the public if a prisoner escapes and determining conditions of detention. Categorisation may indirectly affect release in an indeterminate sentence case, but it does not determine the release date.

3. The court declined to impose a general requirement that every prisoner whose category is under review must receive an oral hearing. The relevant question remained whether fairness required an oral hearing in the particular case. The process already permitted reports, prisoner responses, legal representation, and consideration of submissions by the review team.

4. In Mr Hassett’s case, the disagreement between psychologists about further treatment did not establish unfairness. The panel had expertise in resolving such issues, and the claimant’s expert evidence and legal submissions protected his position. His long period in Category A and his being more than eight years beyond tariff were important, but not determinative. His continued denial of the index offences meant that his personal attendance would not have made a useful contribution to the issue of current risk.

5. In Mr Price’s case, the experts substantially agreed that his continued denial of his role and knowledge was relevant to risk. The remaining disagreement fell within the panel’s expertise. Cross-examination or personal elucidation would not have assisted unless he changed his position and admitted responsibility. Nothing showed that the Secretary of State’s reasoning was so flawed or inadequate as to be wrong.