Grantham, R (on the application of) v Parole Board for England and Wales & Anor

A Parole Board must address separately and meaningfully each distinct question before it. A decision on transfer to open conditions requires consideration of the Secretary of State’s specified main factors, including trustworthiness and the risk of absconding. A decision on release must be based on accurate evidence, must distinguish relevant from irrelevant risk factors, and must evaluate both risk-management plans and protective factors. Cumulative errors, omissions and inadequate reasoning may make a decision unreliable and unfair, requiring it to be quashed and reconsidered afresh.

The claimant, serving an imprisonment for public protection sentence, challenged a Parole Board decision refusing both transfer to open conditions and rerelease on licence after recall. The Board concluded that his risk remained too high for open conditions or the community. The claimant argued that the Board had failed to address the separate questions properly, relied on inaccurate or irrelevant matters, and omitted relevant evidence, including his progress, reduced assessed risk and employment prospects.

The High Court considered whether the Board’s decision was lawful, fair and adequately reasoned.

1. Transfer to open conditions. Section 239(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 permits the Secretary of State to issue directions as to matters the Parole Board must take into account. The Board was required to heed and apply the published directions on transfer of indeterminate sentence prisoners to open conditions.
2. The directions required evaluation of the risks and benefits of transfer by reference to specified main factors. These included whether the prisoner was trustworthy enough not to abscond and whether open conditions would provide a worthwhile opportunity to address concerns and receive treatment. Reproducing those factors in the introduction was insufficient. The Board had to consider them separately and substantively. It had not done so, so the decision on transfer was quashed.
3. Rerelease on licence. The Board’s conclusion was undermined cumulatively by material errors and omissions. It treated continuing pro-criminal attitudes as a risk factor without recent supporting evidence; referred unfairly to alleged drug misuse; misstated the claimant’s engagement with personality-disorder work; failed to note that the assessed risk of harm to the victim had reduced; and stated that the risk-management plan was robust without evaluating its effectiveness.
4. The Board also failed expressly to consider the claimant’s employment with his parents, his good work record while previously on licence, and the protective value of that stable and motivating arrangement. These matters were relevant and important.
5. The decision was therefore not properly reasoned, reliable or fair. The claim succeeded. The decision letter dated on or about 22 May 2018 was quashed. The Parole Board was directed to reconsider both matters from scratch and with a fresh and open mind, with fresh reports and any further evidence considered as appropriate. A detailed public funding assessment of the claimant’s costs was ordered.