John Dawes, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board for England & Wales

Parole Board proceedings require a high degree of procedural fairness. Where a panel receives new evidence on which it may place material weight, it must consider whether a further oral hearing is required and give the prisoner a fair opportunity to respond. A panel must also consider a properly raised request for recusal before determining release. In evaluating unproven allegations, it should make findings of fact where appropriate, identify the standard of proof, and explain the relevance and weight given to the evidence. A material factual assertion, particularly one inconsistent with the existing evidence, should not be accepted without anxious scrutiny and reasonable enquiry.

John Dawes sought judicial review of the Parole Board’s decision of 27 December 2023 refusing to direct his release. The challenge alleged procedural unfairness, apparent bias, failure to evaluate unproven allegations in accordance with [2023] AC 807 and the Board’s guidance, and a material mistake of fact concerning an alleged outstanding charging decision.

The Board and Secretary of State did not appear and took a neutral stance. Permission was granted on both grounds. The central issues were whether the Panel should have held a further oral hearing, considered the request for a fresh panel, properly evaluated the new evidence, and verified the alleged charging position.

1. Outcome. The claim succeeded and the Parole Board’s decision was quashed.
2. New evidence and oral hearing. Parole Board proceedings require a high degree of procedural fairness. The Panel had a duty to consider whether a further oral hearing was necessary after receiving the police report, witness statements and consequential Community Offender Manager report. Since the Panel placed significant weight on that material, fairness required an opportunity to address it orally, even though the claimant had not expressly requested a further oral hearing after receiving it. The possibility that the result might have been different was sufficient.
3. Fresh panel and apparent bias. The Panel should have located and considered the detailed complaint and decided whether recusal was appropriate before determining release. Its failure to do so deprived the claimant of a decision on the application and rendered the complaint academic. Applying the fair-minded and informed observer test in Potter v Magill, the failure, viewed with the surrounding circumstances, gave rise to the appearance of a real risk of bias.
4. Unproven allegations. The Panel treated the police material as highly important but did not make clear findings of fact, identify the standard of proof, explain why the police evidence was preferred to the claimant’s account, or state the weight attached to the allegations. That failed to comply with the approach required by R (Pearce) v Parole Board and the Board’s published guidance.
5. Mistake of fact. The assertion that police were seeking a charging decision was new, unsupported elsewhere in the dossier and inconsistent with the claimant’s submissions. Anxious scrutiny required further enquiries, including checking whether the promised detailed complaint had been received. Accepting the assertion without such enquiries was procedurally unfair and materially affected the decision.

High Court (Administrative Court): On 9 July 2024 HHJ Simon granted permission for judicial review on both grounds and expedited the hearing. Following the hearing on 28 August 2024, HHJ Rawlings quashed the Parole Board’s decision dated 27 December 2023.