Davenport v The Parole Board of England and Wales

In judicial review proceedings concerning a court or tribunal, every other party to the underlying proceedings must be identified as an interested party. In Parole Board cases, the Secretary of State for Justice is such a party because the Parole Board Rules 2016 make the Secretary of State a party and Practice Direction A to CPR 54 expressly requires other parties to the tribunal proceedings to be named.

The Secretary of State has an important public-interest and assisting role. Claimants and defendants must carefully identify and notify the Secretary of State, even where the Secretary of State made no representations to the Parole Board and the Board adopts a neutral litigation stance.

The claimant sought judicial review of a Parole Board decision refusing to re-release him after recall from licence. Permission was granted on grounds concerning the Board’s treatment of allegations leading to recall and the adequacy of its reasons for concluding that the claimant posed a high risk of serious harm. Permission was refused on a proposed ground concerning transfer to open conditions.

The Board had adopted a neutral position and had not identified the Secretary of State for Justice as an interested party. The court therefore considered whether the Secretary of State, who was a party under the Parole Board Rules 2016, should have been named and served in accordance with CPR 54 and its Practice Direction.

1. Secretary of State was an interested party. The claimant correctly conceded that the Secretary of State for Justice was directly affected by the claim within CPR 54.1(2)(f). Rule 2 of the Parole Board Rules 2016 also defined “party” to include a prisoner or the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State’s absence from the Parole Board hearing did not alter that status.
2. Identification and service were mandatory. Practice Direction A to CPR 54, paragraph 5.1, expressly required other parties to proceedings in a court or tribunal to be named as interested parties. CPR 54.6(1)(a) required the claimant to state in the claim form the name and address of any person considered to be an interested party. This obligation required careful consideration and could not be ignored.
3. The Secretary of State’s role was significant. The Secretary of State was the guardian of the public interest. The Ministry of Justice’s Public Protection Casework Section had relevant legal and practical expertise and could examine the claimant’s assertions and identify matters requiring response. The Secretary of State could also recognise an apparent error and draw it to the Board’s attention, including where an agreed quashing order might be appropriate under paragraph 17 of the Practice Direction.
4. Order. The claimant was permitted to amend and serve the claim form naming the Secretary of State. Time was abridged for an acknowledgment of service and extended for detailed grounds. Further directions would depend on whether the Secretary of State indicated an intention to defend.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. The judgment records an earlier permission order made by Mr Philip Mott QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, on 12 December 2017. Permission was granted on the principal grounds concerning the Parole Board’s reasoning and refused on the proposed open-conditions ground.