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

Procedural fairness in a Parole Board oral hearing is assessed by the court for itself. The claimant must establish that the procedure was unfair, rather than merely less satisfactory than an alternative. Once unfairness is established, it is sufficient to show that the outcome might have been different.

The Board may case-manage hearings and impose reasonable limits on questioning. However, a marked reduction in the time previously allocated should be directed in advance, with brief reasons. On the facts, reducing a complex first oral hearing from three hours, excluding discussion and deliberation, to two hours without notice made the procedure unfair.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Parole Board’s decision of 14 March 2024 refusing to direct his release. He had been recalled to custody after alleged further serious drug offending and had already undergone paper reviews. The hearing on 23 February 2024 was his first oral hearing following recall.

The hearing had initially been estimated at three and a half hours, including panel discussion. It was effectively limited to two hours because other hearings were listed on the same day. The claimant alleged that the shortened hearing prevented his representative from properly testing the evidence and contributed to factual errors in the decision. The central issue was whether the conduct and duration of the hearing were procedurally unfair.

1. Procedural fairness. The court had to determine for itself whether a fair procedure had been followed. The claimant had to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that fairness required a different procedure and that the procedure actually adopted was unfair. If unfairness was established, it was enough to show that the outcome might have been different; it was unnecessary to show that it would have been different. The principles in R (Osborn and others) v The Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61 were relevant by analogy.
2. Issues not establishing unfairness. The fact that the panel consisted of one Parole Board member and an independent member, rather than two members as originally directed, did not establish unfairness. Written closing submissions did not, without more, establish procedural unfairness. Their fairness was fact-specific, and here they assisted compliance with rule 24(9) of the Parole Board Rules.
3. Duration of the hearing. The original estimate contemplated a three-hour hearing, apart from discussion and deliberation. The effective reduction to two hours was marked, unilateral and made without advance notice or reasons. The issues included a complex offending history, recall, risk assessment, release planning and evidence supporting release. The uncontested evidence showed that the representative could not fully test the evidence, and the decision contained an apparent factual error concerning the claimant’s conduct in custody.
4. The compressed timetable therefore made the hearing unfair, regardless of how well the hearing was managed. The Board retains power to manage hearings and impose reasonable limits on questioning, but a marked reduction in the allocated time should be directed in advance and supported by brief reasons.
5. The decision refusing release was quashed. An expedited rehearing was ordered so that a decision could be taken before 24 April 2025. The court invited the Board to list the rehearing for three hours, excluding discussion and deliberation.