Alan Charles Newlove, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board & Anor

A sufficiently clear request to vary the licence conditions of a life-sentenced offender in the community must be referred to the Parole Board, whether made by the Probation Service, the offender or a third party. The Board must consider every variation request and all relevant material within the referral. It need not conduct an automatic review of every licence condition, but it must address wider conditions whose continued operation is material to proportionality and human rights. The Board has power to hold an oral hearing on licence variations, and fairness may require one where facts, risk or proportionality are seriously in issue. Reasons must address each request, the evidence, the risks, the competing interests and why the conditions are necessary and proportionate. The judicial review was allowed and declarations were made.

The claimant, a life-sentenced offender released on licence, challenged a Parole Board decision adding exclusion zones and maintaining existing licence conditions. He alleged that the Board had failed to consider his solicitors’ request to relax existing conditions, that the Secretary of State had failed to refer that request, that an oral hearing had been unlawfully refused, and that the decision lacked adequate reasons and proportionality justification.

The claimant was recalled to prison after the hearing. The court nevertheless held that part of the dispute remained live because the procedure would affect any future release and variation of his licence conditions. There was also a public interest in clarifying the statutory framework governing referrals, hearings, reasons and proportionality.

1. Academic claim and remedy. The claimant retained an interest in the procedure governing future licence decisions, and the issues were of public importance for other offenders, the public and victims or persons at risk. The judicial review was allowed. The appropriate remedy was declaratory relief concerning the illegality of the Parole Board’s decision-making.
2. Referral and jurisdiction. The Board’s jurisdiction arose under section 239 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 when a matter was referred by the Secretary of State. An offender could not self-refer directly. However, a sufficiently clear request made through the Probation Service and the Public Protection Casework Section had to be referred on, whether it originated with the Probation Service, the offender or a third party. The July 2024 request had in fact been referred, so the alleged failure to refer was not established. The proposed referral-back ground was not determined.
3. Scope of the referral. Once referred, the matter included all variation requests and relevant information supplied with it. The Duty Member’s exclusive focus on additional exclusion zones meant that she failed to determine requests to update, remove or relax existing conditions. That was either an unlawful failure to determine a relevant issue or a misdirection in law.
4. Comprehensive consideration. A variation request did not automatically require a detailed review of every condition. The Board nevertheless had to consider the information comprehensively and address any condition or combination of conditions that appeared disproportionate or incompatible with Convention rights. If it contemplated an unrequested condition, fairness would generally require an opportunity to respond.
5. Oral hearing. The power to hold an oral hearing arose under section 239(3)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, alternatively by implication as incidental to the Board’s recommendation-making function. Applying R (Osborn) v Parole Board [2014] AC 1115, fairness required a hearing because important facts, risk and proportionality were disputed and oral questioning could materially assist the Board. The refusal was unlawful. A separate complaint about new material failed because the claimant had been given an opportunity to respond.
6. Reasons and justification. Applying R (Oyston) v the Parole Board of England and Wales [2000] 3 WLUK 35, South Bucks District Council v Porter (No 2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953, R (Aguilar Quila) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] 1 AC 621 and Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury [2013] UKSC 39, the decision needed to address each request, the factual dispute, the Probation Service’s views, the relevant risks, the representations and the necessity and proportionality of the conditions. The bare assertion that the additional zones were necessary and proportionate was inadequate.
7. Wider guidance. The court suggested that the Board’s guidance should clarify the sources and route of variation requests, the relevance of Probation Service views, the need to decide each request separately, the possibility of considering wider conditions where necessary for proportionality, and the availability of oral hearings.