Christopher Newton, R (on the application of) v Parole Board for England and Wales

Procedural fairness requires the Parole Board to decide afresh whether an oral hearing is needed, rather than asking whether the prisoner can show that the paper decision was wrong or that an oral hearing would probably change the outcome.

An oral hearing will commonly be required where important facts are disputed, significant explanations or mitigation require assessment, the Board cannot fairly assess risk without questioning the prisoner, or the prisoner needs a face-to-face encounter to present his case effectively. The prisoner’s legitimate interest in participating, particularly after recall from conditional liberty, is also relevant.

The claimant, a recalled prisoner, challenged the Parole Board’s refusal to convene an oral hearing before making a final paper decision that gave no direction for his release. He disputed material parts of the recall evidence, including the alleged opening of a bank account, possession of unauthorised phones and weapons, the significance of digital material, and alleged hostility towards professionals.

The Parole Board maintained that the written representations disclosed no significant new information, that an oral hearing would not be effective without further risk-assessment material, and that a paper decision was appropriate. The central issue was whether fairness required an oral hearing under the principles in [2013] UKSC 61.

1. Claim succeeded. The Parole Board’s final decision refusing an oral hearing was quashed. The Board was directed to hold an oral hearing as soon as reasonably practicable.
2. The governing question was whether fairness required an oral hearing. The Board had to determine that question afresh at the second stage. It was wrong to focus on whether the paper decision might have been mistaken, whether further information would probably change the outcome, or whether an oral hearing would be effective only if an updated psychological risk assessment were available.
3. Important factual disputes and significant explanations engaged the principle in [2013] UKSC 61. The claimant had offered explanations concerning the bank account, phones and alleged weapons. Those explanations required the claimant to be heard and his credibility assessed. The Board had materially relied on the alleged weapons without addressing his explanation that some were household items, while his acceptance of concern about the crossbow was relevant to insight.
4. The disputed facts were relevant to both the level and manageability of risk. The evidence stated that risk remained high pending clarification about the weapons. A fair assessment therefore required the Board to see and question the claimant, whether or not it ultimately accepted his account.
5. The claimant’s recall after more than four years in the community engaged the importance of participation in the decision-making process. A face-to-face hearing would also allow proper exploration of the allegations that he was aggressive towards professionals and that he was sexually preoccupied, and would assist assessment of his presentation and attitude.
6. The approach required by [2013] UKSC 61 was not confined to the likelihood of release. Fairness protects participation, the testing of relevant information and the rule of law, as well as decision-making accuracy.

This was a first-instance judicial review. The claimant obtained permission from a Deputy High Court Judge on 23 January 2025. The Administrative Court allowed the claim and quashed the Parole Board’s decision.