Reuben Valentine, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice

The Secretary of State is the primary decision-maker on transfer to open prison conditions and may lawfully depart from a Parole Board recommendation, provided the decision is rational and gives the recommendation appropriate respect.

The required reasons depend on the issue. Particular weight is required where the Parole Board has an institutional or procedural advantage, such as fact-finding, credibility assessment or expert evaluation. On the ultimate evaluative assessment of risk, the Secretary of State may form an independent judgment, drawing on expertise in prisoner management and responsibility for public safety. A decision may reasonably prefer an alternative progression route where the Parole Board has not considered it.

The claimant, a serving indeterminate sentence prisoner, challenged the Secretary of State’s decision not to accept the Parole Board’s recommendation that he be transferred from closed to open prison conditions.

The Parole Board had concluded that the claimant’s risk would be manageable in open conditions. The Secretary of State accepted the factual findings but considered that the risk remained too high and that a Progression Regime should be explored first. The central issue was whether the Secretary of State’s evaluative departure from the recommendation was irrational or insufficiently reasoned.

1. Claim dismissed. The court considered both the notification letter and the underlying proforma. On either approach, the irrationality challenge failed.
2. The Secretary of State had discretion whether to accept the Parole Board’s recommendation. The Parole Board’s recommendation had to be accorded appropriate respect, but differing evaluative views on the same facts could coexist without irrationality.
3. The court adopted the principles stated in Green. The Parole Board’s particular advantage is strongest in relation to fact-finding and matters arising from its hearing process. Where the issue is an evaluative assessment of future risk, the Secretary of State may reach an independent view, while still giving reasons and respecting the Board’s assessment.
4. The Secretary of State had not rejected any finding of fact or credibility assessment. The reasons relied on were legitimate and rational, including the claimant’s continuing account of the index offence, his attitude to the expiry of his minimum term, the need to consolidate learning, the need to demonstrate sustained compliance, and his limited understanding of life in the community.
5. The Parole Board had not considered alternative progression routes, including a Progression Regime. That omission was a material gap in its reasoning. The Secretary of State was entitled to conclude that there was not yet a wholly persuasive case for transfer to open conditions, while accepting that progression was required and that open conditions might later be appropriate.
6. The factual matters relied on in the notification letter were sufficiently closely connected to the issue under consideration to constitute reasons when the document was read as a whole. The proforma provided further detail and demonstrated appropriate respect for the Parole Board.

The claim was dismissed.

First-instance judicial review. Permission was granted on 16 January 2024. The claim challenging the Secretary of State’s decision was dismissed.