Stubbs, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board for England and Wales

The Parole Board must assess whether a prisoner is suitable for transfer to open conditions by applying the Secretary of State’s directions and considering the evidence as a whole. It is entitled to make its own assessment of risk and progress, including from the prisoner’s evidence at the hearing. A requirement for further work is not irrational merely because the prison service has failed to provide the facilities needed to undertake it, provided the work is adequately specified and not inherently unworkable. Responsibility for providing those facilities lies with the Secretary of State, not the Parole Board.

The claimant, serving an imprisonment for public protection sentence, challenged the Parole Board’s decision not to recommend his transfer to open conditions. The panel considered that he had made progress but needed further work on risk-related matters, including peer associations, victim impact, professional relationships and personality factors. The claimant argued that the panel had irrationally relied on inadequate expert material and required work which could not be undertaken in closed conditions.

The central issue was whether the panel’s assessment and its specification of further work involved irrationality or another error of law.

1. Claim dismissed. The panel’s decision of 16 June 2014 disclosed no irrationality or other error of law.
2. The court applied the established approach that it must not interfere with the Parole Board’s judgment within its area of expertise. The question was whether the panel acted in accordance with the statutory directions, reached a decision within the range reasonably open to it, and gave proper, sufficient and intelligible reasons.
3. The panel did not simply adopt Ms Carter’s conclusions. It rejected the security intelligence as lacking evidential quality, disregarded the claimant’s post-tariff status as irrelevant to the open-prison decision, considered his progress, and made its own assessment of his evidence and personality. That was an assessment the panel was particularly well qualified to make.
4. Having regard to paragraphs 3 and 5(a) of the directions, the panel was entitled to conclude that the claimant had not made sufficient progress and should not yet move to open conditions. It was also entitled to specify further work required before progression.
5. The further work was adequately specified and was not inherently unworkable. The practical difficulty arose because the prison service had not provided the necessary tailored intervention. Under