Ezekel Taylor, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board for England and Wales

Procedural fairness requires the Parole Board to hold an oral hearing where fairness, assessed in light of the facts and the importance of what is at stake, requires one. The court must make its own assessment of fairness. A request for an oral hearing is not an appeal against a provisional paper decision, and must not be determined on the assumption that the earlier decision was correct. Reasons must engage with the principal important controversial issues and explain how material factual and legal issues were resolved. Standard wording which merely states the applicable test is inadequate where the prisoner has made specific representations requiring consideration.

The claimant, a recalled prisoner serving an imprisonment for public protection sentence, challenged Parole Board decisions dated 19 June and 4 July 2023 refusing an oral hearing before directing no release. The claimant relied on procedural fairness, Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights, inadequate reasons, and the alleged mischaracterisation of the later request as a review of the earlier paper decision.

The decisions became final on 25 July 2023 under Rule 20(6)(a) of the Parole Board Rules 2019. The central issues were whether fairness required an oral hearing, whether adequate reasons had been given, and whether the Board had applied the correct approach to the renewed request.

1. Ground One succeeded. The court independently assessed whether a fair procedure had been followed. Applying the principles in R (Osborn) v The Parole Board, fairness required an oral hearing. The claimant had previously been released on licence and his risk had been successfully managed in the community for several years. An oral hearing would have enabled him to demonstrate that he could again comply with licence conditions and would have allowed the views of his Community Offender Manager to be explored and tested. The absence of evidence from a Prison Offender Manager strengthened the need for closer examination.
2. The Board’s function was to assess whether risk could be managed on release, not to punish the claimant. The oral hearing would have better enabled that assessment. The factors advanced on the claimant’s behalf were each made out.
3. Ground Two succeeded. The reasons given on 19 June and 4 July were wholly inadequate. The standard wording adopted on 19 June stated the applicable test but did not engage with the claimant’s cogent written representations. The later decision similarly failed to address those arguments meaningfully. The reasons therefore did not explain why the matter was decided as it was or how the principal important controversial issues were resolved, contrary to the standard stated in South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter (No 2).
4. Ground Three succeeded. The 4 July decision treated the request for an oral hearing as a review of the earlier decision and proceeded on the presumption that the earlier paper decision was correct. That was the procedural error identified in Osborn. The question was whether fairness required an oral hearing, not whether the earlier decision had been shown to be wrong.
5. The decisions of 19 June and 4 July, which became final on 25 July, were quashed. An oral hearing before the Parole Board was directed.