Darren Hewitson, R (on the application of) v Parole Board for England and Wales

In a post-tariff indeterminate sentence case, the Parole Board must hold an oral hearing where fairness requires it in light of the facts and the importance of continued detention. The prospect of release is not the test. Particular care is required where the Board’s own material raises mental-health issues, disputed risk mechanisms, or the possibility that custody is exacerbating risk. The Board must independently assess risk and its management, consider whether oral and expert evidence would assist, and engage with material representations giving adequate reasons. A failure to address whether a therapeutic setting could mitigate risk rendered refusal of an oral hearing unlawful and incompatible with Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The claimant, serving concurrent IPP sentences and having spent more than 11 years in custody after expiry of his most recent tariff, challenged the Parole Board’s provisional paper decision of 13 January 2026 and final decision of 26 February 2026. Both decisions refused an oral hearing. After obtaining legal representation, the claimant raised mental-health vulnerability, disputed risk evidence, self-harm risk, and the possibility that a therapeutic setting could reduce risk. The Board concluded that there had been no significant change and that oral evidence would not assist. The claim alleged procedural unfairness and breach of Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The central issue was whether fairness required an oral hearing.

Outcome. The judicial review succeeded. The court quashed the decisions of 13 January and 26 February 2026 and directed that an oral hearing be convened as soon as reasonably practicable. No expedition was ordered.

1. The court adopted the legal framework set out in R (Somers) v Parole Board [2023] EWHC 1160, including the statutory and procedural context under the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 and the Parole Board Rules 2019. The guidance in R (Osborn, Booth and Reilly) v Parole Board for England and Wales [2013] UKSC 61 required an oral hearing whenever fairness demanded it in light of the facts and what was at stake. That question was distinct from the likelihood of release.
2. Post-tariff cases required anxious scrutiny of whether continued detention remained justified by unacceptable risk. Whether fairness required a hearing was treated as a hard-edged objective question for the court, adopting the approach in R (Clarke) v Parole Board [2025] EWHC 190 (Admin).
3. The decisive deficiency concerned mental health. The Board’s own material identified vulnerability, a risk of serious self-harm, rapidly changing psychological circumstances, and the possibility that prison was reinforcing the claimant’s negative beliefs and mistrust. It raised the possible value of a more therapeutic and trauma-responsive setting but did not answer whether that setting could mitigate risk. The final decision did not engage with that issue or with the claimant’s representations. An oral hearing could enable proper assessment of risk and its management, including oral evidence from a psychologist or psychiatrist. The court also relied on R (Lawrence) v Parole Board [2020] EWHC 3774 (Admin).
4. The claimant’s disputed security entries, considered alone, did not establish a material need for an oral hearing. Nevertheless, the failure to address the central mental-health and risk-management issues, and the failure to give adequate reasons, made the refusal unlawful. It also failed to comply with Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The suggestion that the presumption in favour of oral hearings described in R (Somers) v Parole Board was rebuttable was not necessary to the decision.

This was a first-instance judicial review. Permission on both grounds was granted on 29 June 2026.