Peter Thomson, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board for England and Wales

Procedural fairness generally requires an oral hearing before a parole decision where important facts are disputed, risk cannot fairly be assessed on the papers, or the prisoner needs to explain or test material relied upon by decision-makers. The need is particularly strong for a post-tariff indeterminate-sentence prisoner, where insight, risk reduction and future management are central. The question is whether an oral hearing is needed for a fair decision, not whether release is likely. A decision-maker must address fairness to the prisoner and must not decide that an oral hearing is unnecessary merely because the outcome would probably be unchanged. Where those requirements are not met, the refusal may also breach article 5(4) of the Convention.

The claimant was serving an extended determinate sentence while remaining subject to an IPP sentence and being post-tariff. The Parole Board reviewed his continued detention on the papers, declined to direct release, and refused his renewed request for an oral hearing. He challenged the refusal on procedural-fairness and article 5(4) grounds.

The claimant identified disputes concerning the factual basis of the risk assessment, an alleged licence breach, and the availability or completion of further risk-reduction work. The central issue was whether fairness required the 2024 review decision to be reconsidered at an oral hearing.

1. Claim allowed. The refusal of an oral hearing dated 12 November 2024 was quashed. The 2024 review was directed to be retaken by way of an oral hearing, and a declaration was made that the claimant’s article 5(4) rights had been violated.
2. The principles in R (Osborn) v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61; [2014] AC 1115 require the Board to hold an oral hearing whenever fairness to the prisoner requires it. The inquiry is distinct from the likelihood of release and must focus on the fairness of the procedure by which the decision will be made.
3. Here, the dossier contained material factual disputes about alleged drug misuse, an alleged licence breach, and the claimant’s ability to complete the HSP programme. Those disputes could affect the assessment of risk and the recommendations concerning release and open conditions.
4. The assessment of future risk and risk-management requirements involved evaluative judgments which required testing through evidence and questioning. The decision-makers had instead focused on whether the existing material was sufficient to reach the same outcome, rather than on what fairness required.
5. As a post-tariff indeterminate-sentence prisoner, the balance favoured an oral hearing. The claimant had a legitimate interest in participating in a decision concerning his continued incarceration, and the Board had to scrutinise the issues of insight, risk reduction, management and progression through a fair procedure.
6. Because the failure to provide an oral hearing was procedurally unfair, it also failed to comply with the duty under section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 to act compatibly with article 5(4).

There was no order as to costs, save for legal aid taxation.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. Permission was initially refused on the papers, then granted on two grounds and refused on one ground by a Deputy High Court Judge on 23 July 2025.