Royal, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Justice

In reviewing a Category A prisoner’s security classification, the decision whether an oral hearing is required is governed by objective procedural fairness. The question is whether, in the particular circumstances, a hearing would materially assist the decision-maker or enable the prisoner to present his case effectively. The factors in PSI 08/2013 are guidance rather than a mathematical test. A prisoner’s long detention, post-tariff status, or lack of a previous hearing does not automatically require an oral hearing. The decision-maker must assess those factors in the context of the administrative prison-management function and the evidence concerning risk. A refusal to downgrade is irrational only if it falls outside ordinary Wednesbury principles. On the evidence, neither challenge succeeded.

The claimant was serving a life sentence and had remained in Category A throughout his imprisonment. He challenged the decision to maintain that classification following an annual review and the refusal to hold an oral hearing. He argued that his long period in custody, post-tariff status, absence of any previous oral hearing, alleged disputes in the expert material, and possible treatment impasse made a hearing procedurally fair.

The defendant relied on the reports before the decision-maker, which identified continuing high risk, insufficient insight and outstanding offence-related work. The central issues were whether fairness required an oral hearing under PSI 08/2013 and whether the refusal to downgrade was irrational.

1. Outcome. The claim was refused. The refusal to hold an oral hearing was objectively fair, and the decision to maintain Category A status was not irrational.
2. The governing downgrade criterion in PSI 08/2013 was whether there was convincing evidence that the prisoner’s risk of re-offending, if unlawfully at large, had significantly reduced. The evidence had to be assessed against the risk posed in the community without controls.
3. The fairness question was distinct from the merits of categorisation. It required an objective assessment of whether a hearing was necessary in the circumstances. The factors in paragraph 4.7 were not cumulative or automatic requirements. They had to be weighed in the context of the evidence and the management function being performed.
4. Booth & Osborn v The Parole Board [2014] 3WLR 1020 established the relevance of oral hearings to procedural fairness, but its guidance arose in the Parole Board context. As explained in Hassett & Anor (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice [2017] 1WLR 4750, security categorisation is an administrative prison-management function with materially different procedures and objectives. Those contextual differences remained relevant when applying the general fairness test.
5. The claimant’s reports and written representations gave him a substantial opportunity to present his case. The psychologist’s assessment was not materially equivocal, and the representations did not identify a genuine expert dispute or material inconsistency requiring oral clarification. The treatment impasse was limited to the unsuitability of one programme; an alternative route remained available.
6. The incident involving a female healthcare worker did not require an oral factual hearing. It was supported by several accounts and, in any event, was not decisive because the principal evidence showed no convincing reduction in risk.
7. The irrationality challenge failed. The decision-maker was entitled to rely on the reports before him, which showed continuing high risk, insufficient personal change and outstanding risk-related work. Material reports and a Parole Board decision not before the decision-maker could not establish irrationality.

First-instance judicial review in the High Court (Administrative Court). The claim challenging the Category A classification decision and refusal of an oral hearing was refused.