Nyrome Hinds, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice

Whether procedural fairness requires an oral hearing in a prisoner categorisation review is a matter for the court’s own assessment on judicial review. Oral hearings in Category A review cases are rare, but fairness may require one where it could assist in resolving a significant factual or expert dispute, or clarify an issue concerning the prisoner’s credibility or attitude that may materially affect risk. A Director is not bound by a local advisory panel’s recommendation and a disagreement with unanimous recommendations does not, without more, create an expert dispute. Length of imprisonment and the absence of a previous oral hearing are relevant but are not independently determinative. The decisive question is whether an oral hearing would materially assist the decision-making process.

The claimant, a Category A prisoner, sought judicial review of the Director’s refusal to grant him an oral hearing during his 2024 annual categorisation review. The local advisory panel, psychology and offender-management reports recommended downgrade to Category B, but the Director concluded that there was not yet convincing evidence of a significant reduction in the claimant’s risk if unlawfully at large. The claimant argued that the unanimous recommendations, the alleged factual and expert disputes, his lengthy period in Category A and the absence of any previous oral hearing made an oral hearing necessary. The central issue was whether common-law procedural fairness required an oral hearing in the circumstances existing when the decision was made.

1. The claim was dismissed. The refusal to hold an oral hearing for the 2024 review was lawful and did not breach common-law fairness.
2. Whether fairness requires an oral hearing is for the court to determine on its own assessment. The question is not whether the refusal was irrational or unreasonable: Mackay v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] EWCA Civ 522.
3. Category A categorisation is fundamentally an administrative management function. The Director must make his own assessment of risk and is not bound by the local advisory panel’s recommendation. The reports are material enabling evidence, not the decision itself.
4. Oral hearings are expected to be rare, although exceptional circumstances need not be shown. They may be required where a significant factual dispute, a significant dispute on expert materials, or an issue concerning the prisoner’s credibility or attitude could usefully be explored and might affect the decision: R(Downs) v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] EWCA Civ 1422; R (Hassett and Price) v Secretary of State for Justice [2017] EWCA Civ 331.
5. The Director’s rejection of unanimous recommendations for downgrade did not itself amount to a dispute between experts. The dossier was clear and intelligible, the claimant had had a full opportunity to contribute, and no issue was identified which an oral hearing might resolve. The claimant’s continued denial of the index offences and the Director’s view that a longer period of consolidation was needed were matters for the Director’s assessment on the papers.
6. The claimant’s length of time in Category A and lack of any previous oral hearing were relevant but, without supporting grounds, did not justify a hearing. There was no impasse, and Category A status did not presently prevent consideration for parole or release.

First-instance judicial review. No prior decision in the same proceedings is stated in the judgment.