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

Under rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules 2019, reconsideration may be sought on grounds of irrationality or procedural unfairness. A reconsideration decision is arguably unlawful where it addresses only rationality and fails to determine substantial procedural-fairness complaints. In cases affecting liberty, inaccurate recording of evidence may itself raise an arguable procedural-fairness issue. The reconsideration decision must also arguably address whether the original decision gave adequate reasons, rather than simply assert that the reasons were sufficient.

The claimant, serving a life sentence, challenged the Parole Board’s written decision refusing reconsideration of a panel’s recommendation that he remain confined but move to open conditions. Permission for judicial review had previously been refused on the papers. The renewed application argued that the reconsideration decision addressed only rationality, despite the application having raised procedural unfairness, including inaccurate recording of evidence and inadequate reasons. The issue was whether those complaints were arguable and justified permission.

1. Permission granted. The renewed application raised arguable grounds for judicial review of the reconsideration decision.
2. Rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules 2019 created two separate reconsideration grounds: irrationality and procedural unfairness. Although the reconsideration decision referred to both limbs, its substantive legal analysis addressed rationality only. It did not expressly determine the procedural-fairness complaints or refer to procedural impropriety.
3. The complaint that the evidence concerning the claimant’s alleged use of sex sites had been inaccurately recorded was arguable as a procedural-fairness issue. The court considered the reasoning in R (on the application of McIntyre) v Parole Board for England and Wales, where fairness, in the context of the Parole Board’s powers over liberty, required examination of the hearing notes to ensure that they accurately reflected what had been said.
4. The complaint concerning the adequacy of the panel’s reasons was also arguable. The reconsideration decision stated that the reasons were clearly set out, but did not explain why they were adequate. An obligation to give sufficient reasons at the original decision stage arguably had a corresponding significance on reconsideration.
5. The claimant also relied on R(PL) v Parole Board and Secretary of State for Justice, in which a Parole Board decision was quashed on grounds including failure to identify concerns about behaviour and explain how those concerns were cemented. Those authorities supported the conclusion that the claimant’s points were arguable.

Directions were to be set out in the order.

Permission for judicial review was refused on the papers on 18 February 2020 by His Honour Judge Lambert sitting as a judge of the High Court. On renewal, the Administrative Court granted permission.