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

A Parole Board’s decision is unlawful only where its assessment of risk, including its decision whether to obtain further evidence, cannot be rationally justified on the material before it. The Board must consider all relevant matters, but the weight given to them is primarily for the Board. An old psychological assessment does not automatically require an adjournment or a fresh report. The question is whether the evidence before the Board disclosed an unexplained evidential gap such that no rational Board could proceed without further inquiry. Relevant factors include the availability of more recent professional evidence, whether professionals identified the need for an updated assessment, the parties’ position, and whether the existing evidence adequately addressed current risk and treatment needs.

The claimant, a life prisoner sentenced for rape and threats to kill, sought judicial review of the Parole Board’s refusal to recommend his transfer to open conditions. The Board relied in part on a Structured Assessment of Risk and Need completed in 2010, although later evidence addressed his cognitive difficulties, treatment needs and risk factors. Permission was granted on the issue whether the Board irrationally failed to obtain an updated assessment or adjourn the hearing for that purpose.

The central question was whether, in light of the evidence available to it, the Board could rationally conclude that a fresh assessment was unnecessary.

1. Claim dismissed. The Parole Board’s decision not to obtain an updated Structured Assessment of Risk and Need was not irrational.
2. The governing issue was whether the Board had sufficient evidence to determine whether the claimant’s risk had reduced sufficiently for transfer to open conditions. Under Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, s 28(6), release depended on the Board being satisfied that continued confinement remained necessary for public protection. The Board also had powers under Rules 10 and 12 of the Parole Board Rules 2016 to direct further evidence and adjourn a hearing.
3. The Board had to take relevant considerations into account and exclude irrelevant matters. The weight given to relevant considerations was for the Board, subject to public law rationality. A decision not to make further inquiries was likewise reviewable for rationality: R(DSD and NBV) v Parole Board [2018] EWHC 694 (Admin).
4. The Board’s decision was detailed, carefully reasoned and correctly focused on risk. The claimant’s experienced representatives had not requested an updated assessment, even after the hearing was adjourned. None of the professionals involved had said that a fresh assessment was required.
5. The later evidence did not show an evidential gap requiring a new assessment. It recognised that some treatment needs had reduced, but identified continuing risk factors and did not support transfer to open conditions. The Board therefore had up-to-date material sufficient to conclude that the claimant had made progress but not enough to justify the proposed transfer.

This was a first-instance judicial review. Permission was initially refused on the papers, but limited permission was granted after an oral renewal hearing before His Honour Judge Wood QC on 15 October 2019.