Vigrass, R (on the application of) v Parole Board of England and Wales

A public authority must address each material question expressly referred to it for decision. The court should not infer the answer to an omitted question from reasons given on a related issue, particularly where the decision-maker is an expert tribunal. Where one part of a decision is unchallenged, relief should be directed only to the failure affecting the remaining issue. The appropriate remedy may therefore be a mandatory order requiring a further decision, rather than quashing the entire decision.

The claimant, a life prisoner recalled to custody after committing an assault, challenged a decision of the Parole Board refusing to recommend his release on licence. The Secretary of State’s referral also asked the Board to consider whether he was ready for transfer to open prison conditions, having regard to directions issued under Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 239(6). The Board addressed release but omitted the open-conditions issue. Permission had been granted and time extended. The central issue was whether that omission was unlawful and what relief should follow.

1. The application for judicial review succeeded. The Secretary of State had referred the question whether the claimant was ready to transfer to open conditions to the Parole Board. The Board recognised that the issue was within the referral’s scope but failed to address it in its decision letter. That failure was an error of law.
2. The Board’s reasons for refusing release could not be treated as necessarily answering the separate question of suitability for open conditions. Such an inference would be a non sequitur. The question had to be addressed expressly by the Parole Board, as the expert body, rather than determined by the court through inference.
3. The court declined to quash the part of the decision dealing with release on licence because that decision was not challenged. The appropriate relief was a mandatory order requiring the Board to issue a further decision letter addressing whether the claimant was ready to move to open conditions and, if recommending such a move, commenting on the degree of risk after paying due regard to the Secretary of State’s directions under section 239(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
4. The Board was left to determine the procedure for complying with the order, including whether further representations should be obtained and whether they should be written or made at a further hearing. There was no order for costs, save for detailed assessment of the claimant’s publicly funded costs.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. Permission was granted and time for commencement was extended by John Cavanagh QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, on 2 October 2017. The claim was then determined by the Administrative Court.