Colin Anditon, R (on the application of) v Parole Board for England and Wales

Fairness generally requires an oral hearing where a prisoner’s case involves disputed facts, significant mitigation, mental-health evidence, or a need for the Parole Board to assess risk independently. The question is whether an oral hearing is appropriate in light of the facts and the importance of what is at stake. It is distinct from the likelihood of release. A provisional paper decision does not require the prisoner to show that it was wrong. Where the Board is in doubt, it should ordinarily allow an oral hearing. Particular care is required for recalled or post-tariff prisoners, especially where psychiatric evidence may affect disputed offending, coercion, risk, or future management.

The claimant, a post-tariff prisoner serving a life sentence for murder, sought judicial review of the Parole Board’s refusal to direct an oral hearing on his release review. He had significant mental-health difficulties, had been detained under Mental Health Act 1983, and was under investigation for alleged drug-supply offences. The Board treated the outstanding investigation as the principal reason for proceeding on the papers. The central issue was whether fairness required an oral hearing notwithstanding that the criminal investigation and charging decision remained unresolved.

Claim allowed. The refusal to direct an oral hearing was quashed as unfair, and the Board was directed to hold an oral hearing.

1. The applicable approach was that established in Osborn, Booth & Reilly: the Board must hold an oral hearing whenever fairness requires one in the light of the facts and the importance of what is at stake. Relevant circumstances include disputed facts or mitigation, difficulty in making an independent assessment of risk, a need for the prisoner to put his case effectively, and cases where a paper decision may materially affect future management or later reviews.
2. The claimant’s case contained several factors strongly supporting an oral hearing: he had been assessed as floridly psychotic and was not interviewed by the police because of his mental health; he had received home treatment; the probation evidence identified possible coercion; intent to supply was disputed; the Board had identified evidential gaps and directed referral to a specialist psychiatrist member; and no charging decision had been made after about 11 months.
3. Psychiatric evidence or the Board’s expertise could materially inform the issues of intent, coercion and risk. His status as a post-tariff prisoner required, at the least, anxious scrutiny.
4. The Board’s decision focused substantially on the outstanding investigation and did not adequately engage with the claimant’s mental-health issues. The unresolved investigation did not remove the need to consider whether an oral hearing was required for fairness.

The annual review had already commenced, and the claimant’s criminal trial was listed for November 2025. The approved order required the oral hearing.

Not stated in the judgment. This was a first-instance judicial review in the Administrative Court.