Isaac Parker, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice

A judicial review claim may become academic where a later decision supersedes the decision challenged and a quashing order would have no practical effect. The court retains a discretion to determine an academic claim in the public interest, but that discretion is exceptional and should be exercised only where there is a sufficient reason. Delay affecting prisoners’ ability to obtain an effective hearing is a legitimate concern, but it should generally be addressed through procedural case management, such as expedition or combining permission and substantive consideration. It does not justify staying proceedings or permitting wholesale amendment so as to bypass the permission filter.

The claimant, a serving prisoner, challenged the defendant’s refusal to implement Parole Board recommendations that he be transferred to an open prison. The claim alleged irrational assessment of the risk of absconding and irrational reliance on a proposed progressive closed-prison regime.

Before the hearing, the Parole Board made a further recommendation and the defendant made a further refusal. The parties agreed that the later decision superseded the earlier one, making the claim academic. The claimant sought an adjournment or stay pending reasons for the later decision and the Court of Appeal’s judgment in R (Oakley) v Secretary of State for Justice (No 2) and R (Sneddon) v Secretary of State for Justice, with permission to amend the claim.

1. Disposition. The claim was dismissed because the defendant’s later decision had superseded the challenged decision. Even if the earlier decision had been quashed, the order would have had no practical effect.
2. Following R v Home Secretary ex p Salem and L, M and P v Devon County Council, the court ordinarily will not determine an academic claim where no issue remains capable of directly affecting the parties’ rights or obligations. The court is not an advisory body and will not determine hypothetical or premature questions.
3. The court retains a discretion to hear an academic claim where there is a good reason in the public interest. The delay affecting prisoners’ ability to obtain judicial review of decisions affecting liberty was a valid concern. It did not justify determination of this claim, because the concern could be addressed in future cases through expedition, determination on paper, or combining the permission and substantive stages.
4. The proposed stay or adjournment pending the later decision and the Oakley/Sneddon appeal was refused. Those cases concerned materially different policy criteria, and their outcome might not determine the issues arising under the criteria applicable to this claim.
5. Permission is an important filter in judicial review. Wholesale amendment after the defendant’s later decision would improperly short-circuit that filter. The court rejected the proposed course and emphasised the importance of procedural rigour.
6. The parties’ agreement was respected: the defendant was to pay the claimant’s costs of the hearing and preparation, with no other costs order.

First-instance judicial review. Permission was granted by Lavender J on 1 December 2023. The claim was dismissed by the High Court because a supervening decision had made it academic.