Procedural Fairness in Prisoner Progression: Analysis of Lee Brown's Judicial Review

Introduction

The case of Lee Brown challenges the decision-making process of the Scottish Ministers regarding the transfer of prisoners to less secure conditions. Brown, serving a combined custodial and extended sentence at HMP Glenochil, sought judicial review after the Risk Management Team (RMT) refused his transfer request. This commentary delves into the intricacies of the case, examining the procedural fairness invoked by Brown, the legal precedents considered, and the broader implications for prison management within Scotland.

Summary of the Judgment

In May 2020, the Scottish Court of Session dismissed Lee Brown's petition for judicial review challenging the RMT's decision to deny his transfer to less secure conditions. The primary ground for granting permission to proceed with the petition was the fairness concern regarding Brown not being allowed to attend the RMT meeting. The court analyzed relevant case law, particularly the Supreme Court’s decision in R (Osborn) v Parole Board and the Court of Appeal’s judgment in R (Hassett) v Secretary of State for Justice, to determine whether procedural fairness was upheld. Ultimately, the court concluded that the RMT's decision-making process did not necessitate Brown's personal attendance to meet procedural fairness standards.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced two pivotal cases:

R (Osborn) v Parole Board [2014] AC 1115: This Supreme Court decision emphasized the necessity of procedural fairness, particularly the requirement for oral hearings when fairness dictates, irrespective of cost or administrative convenience.
R (Hassett) v Secretary of State for Justice [2017] 1 WLR 4750: The Court of Appeal distinguished the functions of the Parole Board from internal prison management bodies like the RMT, suggesting that procedural fairness standards may vary based on the decision-making entity's role.

Lord Tyre, in delivering the judgment, contrasted these precedents to assess their applicability to Brown's situation. He acknowledged that while Osborn set a high bar for procedural fairness within judicial bodies, Hassett provided flexibility for prison management functions, thereby influencing the court’s stance on the necessity of Brown's attendance at the RMT meeting.

Legal Reasoning

Lord Tyre dissected the principles of procedural fairness, particularly focusing on:

Nature of the Decision: The court emphasized that the essence of the decision, rather than the identity of the decision-making body, determines the applicability of procedural fairness standards.
Assessment of Risk: The RMT comprised professionals deeply familiar with Brown's case, reducing the necessity for his personal attendance.
Absence of Disputed Facts: With no significant factual disputes, the need for an oral hearing was mitigated.
Ignorance of Criteria: While Brown claimed excusable ignorance of specific progression criteria, the court was skeptical, noting available resources like the guidance manual and the application form's references.

Ultimately, the court determined that the RMT's decision-making process was robust and did not require reassessment of procedural fairness with respect to Brown's attendance.

Impact

The judgment reinforces the distinction between judicial decision-making bodies and internal prison management teams regarding procedural fairness. It underscores that while procedural fairness is paramount, its application is context-dependent:

**For Internal Decision-Making Bodies:** The RMT's refusal to require Brown's attendance sets a precedent that internal prison decisions, especially those heavily reliant on specialized assessments, may not always necessitate personal representation.
**For Future Cases:** Prisoners seeking progression may face similar hurdles unless there are disputed facts or significant reasons to warrant personal hearings.
**Policy Implications:** The case highlights the importance of transparent communication within prison systems, as evidenced by Brown's inability to fully understand progression criteria despite available resources.

Moreover, the judgment may prompt Scottish Prison Service to reevaluate how progression policies are communicated to prisoners to prevent claims of ignorance affecting procedural fairness.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Procedural Fairness

Procedural fairness refers to the legal requirement that decision-making processes are conducted in a fair, unbiased, and transparent manner. It ensures that individuals have the opportunity to present their case and respond to evidence against them.

Judicial Review

A judicial review is a legal process where courts examine the lawfulness of decisions or actions made by public bodies, ensuring they comply with legal standards and principles.

Risk Management Team (RMT)

The RMT is a multidisciplinary group within the Scottish Prison Service responsible for assessing and managing the risks posed by prisoners. They determine appropriate security classifications and manage progression to less secure conditions.

Parole Board

The Parole Board is an independent body that reviews prisoners' cases to decide on their release on parole. It assesses factors like behavior, risk of reoffending, and public safety.

Conclusion

The dismissal of Lee Brown's petition underscores the nuanced application of procedural fairness within the Scottish criminal justice system. By differentiating between judicial bodies and internal management teams, the court balances the need for fairness with practical operational considerations. This decision emphasizes that while procedural fairness is a cornerstone of lawful decision-making, its requirements are not monolithic and must adapt to the context of each case. For practitioners and prisoners alike, the judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of understanding the specific procedural standards relevant to different decision-making entities within the correctional framework.