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

A Parole Board deciding whether to hold an oral hearing must assess whether fairness requires oral participation in light of the facts, the issues affecting risk and manageability, and the importance of the decision for the prisoner. An oral hearing may be required where material facts are disputed, the evidence is incomplete or contradictory, oral questioning may assist the Board’s independent assessment, or the prisoner has something useful to contribute. The Board must not focus on whether an oral hearing would change the likely release outcome. It must give meaningful consideration to the prisoner’s legitimate interest in participating, particularly where he was unable to make representations during the initial paper review.

The claimant challenged the Parole Board’s refusal, dated 8 April 2025, to hold an oral hearing concerning the revocation of his licence and continued detention. The Board had made a provisional paper decision after receiving a recall dossier, but the claimant had not submitted representations at that stage because of alleged prison transfers and delay in disclosure.

In his subsequent application for an oral hearing, the claimant identified disputes and evidential gaps concerning his offending, drug and alcohol use, missed appointments, possible ADHD, mitigation, risk, and the manageability of risk. The central issue was whether refusal of an oral hearing was procedurally unfair and unlawful.

1. The claim succeeded. The decision refusing an oral hearing was quashed. The Parole Board was required to convene an oral hearing to review the claimant’s detention, with listing according to its priority framework.
2. The applicable approach was that stated in Osborn. Fairness may require an oral hearing where important facts are disputed, significant explanation or mitigation requires oral assessment, the Board needs assistance in independently assessing risk or its management, or oral participation is needed to enable the prisoner to put his case effectively.
3. The claimant’s application identified several material issues which were unresolved or contradictory on the papers. These included whether he had targeted vulnerable victims; the relationship between cocaine and alcohol use; possible ADHD and its effect on risk; mitigation for missed appointments; alleged deficiencies in sentence planning; and positive behaviour and support in the community. Those matters were potentially relevant to risk and its manageability. The Board’s conclusion that oral evidence would not assist failed to engage with them and amounted to an underestimation of their importance: Osborn at [2(ii)(a)] was applied.
4. The claimant had been unable to participate in the initial paper review for reasons not shown to be his fault. The Board therefore needed to consider his legitimate interest in participating in a decision affecting his liberty. Its reasons were silent on that issue and failed to give it sufficient consideration, contrary to Osborn at [2(iv)], Somers and Clarke.
5. The reasoning also gave the impression that the Board had asked whether an oral hearing would make any difference to the outcome. That outcome-focused approach was impermissible. The relevant question was whether an oral hearing was appropriate, not whether release was likely or whether the hearing would change the decision: Osborn, Somers, McKilligan and Clarke.
6. The refusal was therefore contrary to common-law procedural fairness and unlawful.

The judgment was a first-instance judicial review decision.

• High Court (Administrative Court): permission was granted by HHJ Worster on 13 August 2025. HHJ Emma Kelly quashed the Parole Board’s decision and ordered an oral hearing.