Mina Dich, R (on the application of) v Parole Board for England and Wales & Anor.

The Parole Board’s release test for determinate-sentence prisoners has no fixed temporal limit. A risk arising after sentence expiry may be considered, but only where continued detention before expiry would avoid or reduce that risk. The necessary causal link is critical. Determinate-sentence cases should not automatically be approached as life-sentence cases, and risk should not simply be assessed on an “indefinite” basis.

Where significant factual issues affect the assessment of risk, fairness may require the Parole Board to convene an oral hearing of its own motion. A paper decision made without such a hearing may be quashed.

These conjoined judicial review claims concerned the approach required by the Parole Board when assessing public-protection risk for prisoners serving determinate sentences. Mina Dich was serving an extended determinate sentence and challenged a direction that her risk would be considered on an indefinite basis. Oliver Murphy had been recalled during a standard determinate sentence and challenged a paper refusal of release, including the absence of an oral hearing.

The claims arose against the background of R (Secretary of State for Justice) v Parole Board and Johnson, which addressed the relevance of risk materialising after the custodial term. The central issues were whether post-sentence-expiry risk could be considered and whether Mr Murphy’s case required an oral hearing.

1. Mina Dich. The claim attracted no relief. The statutory question is whether confinement remains necessary for public protection. It does not contain a temporal limit restricting the Board to risks arising before sentence expiry. The sentencing judge’s assessment and the length of the sentence do not determine the period of risk to be considered by the Board.
2. A post-expiry risk is relevant only where continued detention before sentence expiry would avoid or reduce that risk. There must be a causal link between continued confinement and the prevention or reduction of the risk. If detention until expiry would do nothing to affect the later risk, continued confinement cannot be necessary for public protection on that basis. The timing of actual harm may be relevant, but is not determinative.
3. The Parole Board’s June 2022 guidance misstated the law in treating determinate-sentence cases as equivalent to life-sentence cases and in directing panels to assess risk indefinitely without explaining the required causal link. The court identified amendments needed to avoid misunderstanding, but left revision of the guidance to the Board. The challenge to the interlocutory direction was also premature, and no relief was granted.
4. Oliver Murphy. The paper decision was quashed. Significant factual issues concerning Mr Murphy’s risk engaged the circumstances identified in R (Osborn) v Parole Board in which an oral hearing is likely to be required. The Board had a duty to order an oral hearing of its own motion, or explain why one was unnecessary. A later opportunity to seek reconsideration could not cure the initial procedural failure.
5. Mr Murphy’s application was remitted to a fresh panel for an oral hearing as soon as possible. The court did not need to decide whether the Board’s immediate-risk findings were lawful, but observed that the principle concerning post-expiry risk would apply equally to a standard determinate sentence following recall if the necessary causal link were established.

These were first-instance judicial review proceedings in the Administrative Court. No lower-court judgment or appeal was stated.