Yusuf Jama, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice

Before a Category A prisoner is downgraded, the decision-maker must have convincing evidence that the risk of reoffending if unlawfully at large has significantly reduced. The requirement concerns the quality of the evidence, not a different standard of proof. Whether to hold an oral hearing under Prison Service Instruction 08/2013 is a separate discretionary, fact-sensitive decision. The decision-maker must consider the individual case with an open mind, weigh all relevant factors, and recognise that a hearing may be targeted at particular issues. The listed factors are guidance, not automatic rules. A disputed security report or disagreement between experts does not require a hearing where the dispute is not material to risk or a hearing is unlikely to resolve it sufficiently to affect the decision. Judicial review asks whether refusal was wrong or unlawful, not whether the court would assign different weight to the evidence.

The claimant was a Category A prisoner serving life and imprisonment for public protection sentences. After more than 19 years in custody, he had never received an oral hearing for security re-categorisation. The Category A Review Team refused to downgrade him and declined to hold an oral hearing.

He sought judicial review, alleging breach of Prison Service Instruction 08/2013 and common-law procedural fairness. He relied on disputed security intelligence, conflicting psychological material, the length of his Category A detention and the absence of any previous oral hearing. The defendant maintained that the material could fairly be assessed on paper and that no important dispute or impasse required a hearing. The central issue was whether refusal of an oral hearing was unlawful.

The claim was dismissed. The court considered only whether refusal to hold an oral hearing was unlawful; the substantive refusal to downgrade was not challenged.

1. Framework. Section 47 of the Prison Act 1952 and Rule 7 of the Prison Rules 1999 supplied the statutory basis for the relevant directions. Category A status concerns the danger posed if the prisoner is unlawfully at large, not the likelihood of escape. Downgrading requires convincing evidence of a significant reduction in the risk of reoffending if unlawfully at large. The requirement concerns evidential quality rather than a different standard of proof, illustrated by Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman [2001] UKHL 47.
2. Oral hearing decision. Under Prison Service Instruction 08/2013, the decision is discretionary and fact-sensitive. The decision-maker must consider the particular case, act with an open mind, recognise any real advantage of a hearing, and adopt a flexible approach, including a hearing targeted at specific issues. The paragraph 4.7 factors guide the assessment but do not dictate the weight to be given to them. The approach in R (Clarke) v Secretary of State for Justice [2024] EWCA Civ 861 was applied.
3. Judicial review. The court had to decide whether refusal was wrong or unlawful, and whether the relevant judgments were open to the decision-maker. Categorisation is a prison-management function rather than a judicial one. The court should therefore avoid imposing unduly stringent standards and should not substitute its assessment of evidential weight. The judge applied R (Hassett) v Secretary of State for Justice [2017] EWCA Civ 331, Donald MacKay v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] EWCA Civ 522 and R (Clarke) v Secretary of State for Justice [2024] EWCA Civ 861.
4. Application. The security intelligence was unproven, described in general terms and given limited weight. The claimant identified no specific important factual dispute directly bearing on risk. Because the underlying material could not be disclosed and an oral hearing was unlikely to resolve credibility with sufficient certainty, refusal of a hearing was lawful.
5. The expert disagreement concerned recommendations and future progression rather than the Director’s assessment of current risk. The reports were clear and could be evaluated on paper. The proposed PIPE placement meant there was no impasse. The claimant’s long Category A detention and absence of a previous hearing were relevant but carried limited weight because he was far from tariff expiry.
6. The process was fair. The claimant received the material relied on, knew the case to meet, had legal and expert opportunities to make detailed submissions, and received adequate reasons addressing his challenges. The decision was lawful and the claim was dismissed. The later review in October 2025 was not considered on the merits. Counsel were directed to agree an order on costs, with a short consequentials hearing if necessary.

This was a first-instance judicial review. Permission was refused on paper by Lang J on 30 July 2025 and granted by Foster J on 22 October 2025 after an oral hearing. No merits decision below or appeal is stated.