Stokes, R (On the Application Of) v Parole Board of England and Wales

A reconsideration decision under Parole Board Rules 2019 must address each ground advanced, including procedural unfairness as a distinct head from irrationality. Where a Parole Board rejects substantial professional evidence supporting release, it must give adequate reasons, particularly where the evidence identifies significant developments since the events relied upon to assess risk. The reasons must explain why those developments do not answer, or only partly answer, the identified risks. A failure to do so is a material public-law error and may require the reconsideration decision to be quashed.

The claimant, an indeterminate-sentenced prisoner, challenged the Parole Board’s refusal to reconsider its recommendation that he remain detained but be moved to open conditions. Five professional witnesses had recommended release on licence. The claimant alleged that the oral hearing decision inaccurately recorded evidence concerning internet use, failed to explain adequately why the professional recommendations were rejected, and that the reconsideration decision addressed only irrationality rather than procedural fairness.

1. Ground 1(i): internet evidence. The reconsideration decision did address the complaint that the evidence concerning sex websites had been misrepresented. It reasoned that, even without the internet evidence, there was ample evidence that the claimant wished to form a new relationship. That conclusion was permissible, and this aspect of the challenge was not made out.
2. Ground 1(ii): reasons for rejecting professional evidence. A Parole Board is not bound by expert evidence and appropriate respect must be given to its expertise. Nevertheless, the duty to give reasons is heightened where liberty is at stake and the panel appears to reject substantial professional evidence. The panel relied principally on the claimant’s previous periods of release, but the evidence before it included significant later developments: therapeutic work, motivation, changed presentation, a favourable prognosis, good professional relationships, proposed weekly reports, and concerns that open conditions would not provide sufficient support. Those matters were noted but were not placed expressly or implicitly in the balance in the conclusion. The claimant was entitled to know why they did not answer the risks identified. The reasoning therefore fell below the acceptable standard in public law.
3. Ground 2: procedural fairness. Rule 28 permitted reconsideration on grounds of irrationality or procedural unfairness. The reconsideration decision referred to both limbs but its legal discussion and conclusion addressed only irrationality. Read fairly as a whole, it did not show that procedural fairness had been considered as a separate ground. The challenge on this basis was therefore made out.
4. The reconsideration decision was quashed. The reconsideration was required to take place again. The claimant was awarded assessment of his costs for legal aid purposes.

Not stated in the judgment.