Peter Kane v Parole Board for England and Wales

A Parole Board decision refusing release is lawful where its conclusion is safely justified by the evidence, gives adequate reasons, and contains no unexplained evidential gap or leap in reasoning. The Board may reject professional recommendations for release if it explains why the proposed risk-management plan is ineffective. Procedural fairness is context-dependent. The Board must provide a fair opportunity to address the grounds on which it proposes to decide the case, but need not put every concern or every evidential answer to the witnesses. An error of fact is unlawful only where it concerns an established and objectively verifiable fact, is not attributable to the claimant, and materially influenced the decision.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Parole Board’s decision dated 30 June 2024 refusing to direct his release from custody after an oral hearing. He challenged the decision on procedural fairness, irrationality and mistake-of-fact grounds. He relied in particular on professional recommendations supporting release, alleged errors concerning his passport application, mobile phones, previous offending, evidence from the Netherlands, and matters recorded in the decision.

The central issues were whether the Board had fairly addressed the evidence and permitted the claimant to respond to its concerns; whether its conclusion that release would present an unmanageable risk was irrational or inadequately reasoned; and whether any factual errors were legally material.

1. Application refused. The Parole Board was entitled to conclude that release was not safe and that the claimant’s risk of serious harm had become unmanageable in the community.
2. The Board was entitled to reject the recommendations of the probation offender manager, community offender manager and psychologist. It explained that the claimant had not demonstrated reliable compliance with licence conditions, openness with professionals, avoidance of disguised compliance, or the internal skills required to manage his risk factors. The reasoning addressed the professional evidence and disclosed no unexplained evidential gap or leap in reasoning, applying the approach in R(Wells) v Parole Board [2019] EWHC 2710 (Admin).
3. Procedural fairness is context-dependent. The claimant and the professional witnesses had a fair opportunity to address the matters on which the Board relied. The Board was not required to identify every concern in advance or to state whether it accepted each answer. The oral hearing provided an adequate opportunity for evidence, questioning and final submissions. The principles in R(Osborn) v Parole Board [2014] AC 1115, Pearce v Parole Board [2023] AC 807, R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531 and R(Bousfield) v Parole Board [2021] EWHC 3160 (Admin) did not require more.
4. The passport application was relevant even though the Board found no breach of the passport condition. It raised doubts about the claimant’s intention to comply with conditions that might impede future criminal activity. Earlier licence breaches were also relevant, although insufficient by themselves to justify recall.
5. The Board was entitled to rely on the claimant’s guilty plea to possession of two mobile phones, irrespective of ownership of the second phone, when assessing insight and compliance. It was also entitled to take account of his Category A status and absence of risk-reduction work.
6. The alleged factual errors either were not established, were typographical or immaterial, or did not affect the reasoning. The materiality test in E v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] QB 1044 was not satisfied. The claim was therefore refused.