Introduction

The case of Harrison, R (On the Application Of) v. Secretary of State for Justice ([2019] EWHC 3214 (Admin)) presents a significant examination of procedural fairness within the context of prison security classification reviews in England and Wales. The claimant, Mark Harrison, a long-term Category A prisoner, contested the decision by the Deputy Director of Custody High Security ("the Director") to maintain his high-security status without an oral hearing, despite recommendations for re-categorization.

Harrison's challenge centered around three primary grounds: the alleged unlawful application of the wrong test by the Director, the breach of common law procedural fairness due to the absence of an oral hearing, and the failure to adhere to the Prison Service Instruction 08/2013 ("PSI 08/2013") policy. The crux of the matter evolved predominantly around the second and third grounds, with the first ground being withdrawn early in the proceedings.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court, presided over by Judge Manknell, examined whether the Director’s decision to maintain Harrison’s Category A status without an oral hearing was lawful. The court focused on whether procedural fairness necessitated an oral hearing in this context, particularly considering the factors outlined in PSI 08/2013.

After a detailed analysis, the Court concluded that the Director had failed to comply with the procedural fairness requirements stipulated in PSI 08/2013. Specifically, the absence of an oral hearing was deemed unlawful because the circumstances, including a significant dispute over expert assessments and the existence of an impasse regarding Harrison’s re-categorization, warranted such a hearing. Consequently, the Court allowed Harrison's application for judicial review, declaring the Director's decision unlawful.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key cases and policies that shape the legal framework surrounding prison security classifications:

• R (Hassett and Price) v Secretary of State for Justice [2017] 1 WLR 4750: Clarified that guidelines specific to the Parole Board do not directly apply to Category A reviews.
• R (Mackay) v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] EWCA Civ 522: Explored procedural fairness and the necessity of oral hearings in cases of impasse.
• R (Rose) v Secretary of State for Justice [2017] EWHC 1826 (Admin): Highlighted circumstances under which procedural fairness demands an oral hearing.
• R (Downs) v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] EWCA Civ 1422: Reinforced the discretion of decision-makers regarding oral hearings.
• R (Osborn and Booth) v Parole Board [2014] AC 1115: Distinguished the contexts of Parole Board hearings and Category A reviews.

These precedents collectively underscore the necessity of procedural fairness while recognizing the distinct nature of security categorization decisions compared to parole hearings.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning hinged on interpreting PSI 08/2013 and assessing whether the Director's decision adhered to its guidelines. Key points include:

• Procedural Fairness and PSI 08/2013: The policy delineates specific factors that necessitate an oral hearing, such as significant disputes over expert opinions or the existence of an impasse.
• Significant Dispute on Expert Materials: The Director's refusal to accept the assessments by prison psychologist Ms. Sales and the Local Advisory Panel (LAP) created a substantial divergence necessitating an oral hearing.
• Existence of an Impasse: Harrison had exhausted available intervention programs without achieving the risk reduction required for downgrading, leading to a stalemate that PSI 08/2013 anticipates should be resolved through an oral hearing.
• Comparison with Precedents: Cases like Rose and Mackay were instrumental in determining when oral hearings are requisite, emphasizing that they should occur in instances where written submissions do not suffice to resolve key disputes.

The Court found that the Director’s decision-making process overlooked critical aspects requiring oral discourse, thus breaching procedural fairness under PSI 08/2013.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the importance of procedural fairness in administrative decisions related to prison security classifications. It establishes that:

• Oral hearings are not mere formalities but essential mechanisms to resolve significant disputes and impasses.
• Decision-makers must adhere strictly to established policies like PSI 08/2013 to ensure lawful and fair proceedings.
• The alignment of multiple expert assessments with the decision-maker’s conclusions is crucial. Divergences must be adequately addressed, potentially through oral hearings.

Future cases will likely reference this judgment when contesting decisions lacking procedural fairness, particularly regarding the necessity of oral hearings in resolving complex disputes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Procedural Fairness

Procedural fairness refers to the legal requirement that decisions affecting individuals must be made through fair processes. This includes the right to be heard and to present one's case effectively before any adverse decision is made.

Category A Prisoner Classification

In the UK, prisoners are classified into four categories based on the risk they pose if released:

• Category A: High-risk prisoners whose escape would pose significant danger to the public or the state.
• Category B: Prisoners who do not require maximum security but still must be kept secure.
• Category C: Prisoners who cannot be trusted in open conditions but do not require high security.
• Category D: Low-risk prisoners who can be safely released on open conditions.

Harrison was a Category A prisoner, meaning he was considered highly dangerous, and the review was to assess whether his classification could be downgraded based on risk reduction.

Prison Service Instruction 08/2013 (PSI 08/2013)

PSI 08/2013 is a policy guideline that outlines the procedures and criteria for reviewing and potentially downgrading a prisoner’s security category. It specifies when an oral hearing should be conducted, based on factors like disputed expert opinions or impasses in decision-making.

Oral Hearing

An oral hearing is a face-to-face meeting where the prisoner can present their case verbally, respond to assessments, and clarify points of contention. Such hearings are crucial for resolving disputes that cannot be adequately addressed through written submissions alone.

Conclusion

The Harrison v. Secretary of State for Justice judgment underscores the paramount importance of procedural fairness in administrative decisions, especially within the penal system. By mandating an oral hearing in the presence of significant disputes and an impasse, the Court ensures that prisoners are afforded a fair opportunity to influence decisions that profoundly affect their liberty and classification.

This case sets a precedent that administrative bodies must meticulously adhere to established policies like PSI 08/2013 and recognize when procedural safeguards, such as oral hearings, are necessary to uphold justice. It also emphasizes the need for decision-makers to transparently and accurately interpret expert assessments, thereby fostering an equitable system within the criminal justice framework.