JOHN NEWTON, R (on the application of) v THE PAROLE BOARD FOR ENGLAND AND WALES & Anor

A Parole Board assessing risk must base its assessment on undisputed or established facts. It must not treat unproven and disputed allegations as indicative of risk without making findings of fact about the allegations or their constituent facts. Established constituent or consequential facts may be considered where they themselves provide evidence of risk. A decision refusing release that materially relies on unproven allegations is legally flawed and may be quashed.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Parole Board’s decision not to direct his release following recall to custody. The recall followed allegations of domestic abuse, but the related criminal proceedings were discontinued. The Board considered police callout records and relied on a pattern of allegations involving former partners and others, without making findings of fact on the disputed allegations.

The central issue was whether the Board could take those unproven and denied allegations into account when assessing the claimant’s risk.

1. Claim allowed. The Parole Board’s decision was quashed. No other substantive order was necessary.
2. The Board erred in law by taking unproven and denied allegations into account in assessing risk. Its approach was inconsistent with the Court of Appeal’s decision in R (Pearce) v Parole Board [2022] 1 WLR 2216.
3. Risk evaluation must be based on undisputed or established facts. The Board must conscientiously evaluate the information before it and make findings of fact on which the risk assessment is based.
4. It is permissible to rely on established constituent or consequential facts relating to an overarching allegation where those facts themselves provide compelling or convincing indications of risk. The Board must disregard an allegation that remains unproved, rather than treating its seriousness or evidential basis as sufficient to justify reliance on it.
5. The Board’s reliance on the pattern of allegations in paragraph 4.2 of its decision, without findings of fact on the disputed allegations, materially infected its conclusion that the claimant’s risk could not safely be managed in the community.

not stated in the judgment.