Karl Oakley, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice

The claimant, a life-sentenced prisoner, challenged the Secretary of State's decision of 29 June 2021 refusing to accept the Parole Board's recommendation to transfer him to open conditions. The Parole Board had concluded after an oral hearing that, on the evidence available, there was no further work for the prisoner to undertake in closed conditions and recommended transfer. The Secretary of State rejected that recommendation on the ground that further core risk work should be completed in closed conditions before transfer.

The court held that post-decision evidence produced in the judicial review was not admissible to supply new reasons for the decision. The Secretary of State's letter did not give adequate reasons for departing from the Parole Board's factual conclusion that the necessary work could not be provided in closed conditions. That factual conclusion was one reached by an expert panel after hearing oral evidence and the decision-maker needed to show very good reason to differ. Because the decision letter did not reveal any such reason and did not engage with the panel's conclusion, the decision was inadequately reasoned and unlawful.

Background and parties: The claimant, Karl Oakley, serving life imprisonment with an expired tariff, applied for judicial review of the Secretary of State for Justice's refusal to accept a Parole Board recommendation that he be transferred to open conditions. The Parole Board panel (judicial member, two psychiatrist members and an independent member) heard oral evidence, reviewed a large dossier and recommended transfer on 25 May 2021. The Secretary of State rejected the recommendation on 29 June 2021.

Nature of the claim / relief sought: The claimant sought judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision on the grounds that it failed to respect the Parole Board's expertise and factual findings and was irrational insofar as it required completion of further work in closed conditions which the Parole Board had found unavailable.

Issues framed by the court:

• whether post-decision evidence could be admitted to support or explain the Secretary of State's decision;
• whether the Secretary of State lawfully departed from the Parole Board's recommendation and, if not, whether the decision was inadequately reasoned or irrational;
• appropriate relief if the decision was unlawful.

Reasoning and findings: The court applied authorities on the respective roles of the Parole Board and the Secretary of State, the need to respect findings reached after oral evidence and the distinction between disputed factual/expert conclusions and evaluative risk-balancing judgments. The judge held that post-decision material neither elucidated reasons already given nor formed part of the decision-maker's reasoning and so was inadmissible to supply new reasons. The core point of disagreement was the Parole Board's factual conclusion that there was no further work for the prisoner to undertake in closed conditions; that conclusion was reached after questioning witnesses and involved expertise. The Secretary of State gave a single-sentence reason saying such work should be completed in closed conditions but did not explain why he disagreed with the panel's conclusion that it could not be delivered there. That absence of adequate reasons rendered the decision unlawful.

Remedy and wider comment: The appropriate relief was a quashing order with remittal to the Secretary of State to reconsider the decision in accordance with law. The court refused to make a mandatory order requiring acceptance of the Parole Board recommendation because the challenge succeeded only on inadequate reasoning, and transfer decisions must be taken on up-to-date information.

The court quashed the Secretary of State's decision and remitted the matter for reconsideration. The decision was unlawful because it was inadequately reasoned: the Secretary of State did not give sufficient or cogent reasons for departing from the Parole Board's factual conclusion (reached after oral evidence) that there was no further work for the claimant to undertake in closed conditions. Post-decision evidence supplying new reasons was inadmissible to sustain the decision.

Permission to apply for judicial review was granted by Steyn J on 13 June 2022. No further appellate history is stated in the judgment.