Introduction

The case of Gary Delaney v. Parole Board of England and Wales ([2019] EWHC 779 (Admin)) presents a significant judicial examination of the standards and procedures employed by the Parole Board in assessing the risks posed by individuals seeking release. Gary Delaney, convicted of murder and serving a life sentence with a minimum term of 11 years, challenged the Parole Board's decision to revoke his licence following allegations of domestic violence post-release. This commentary explores the intricacies of the case, the High Court's judgment, and the broader implications for parole assessments.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court quashed the Parole Board's decision to deny Delaney's re-release on licence and to refuse a transfer to open conditions. The core issue centered on the Parole Board's reliance on unproven allegations of domestic violence to assess the risk Delaney posed to the public. The court found that the Board failed to substantiate these allegations with sufficient evidence, rendering their risk assessment unreasonable. Consequently, the decision lacked a lawful basis, leading to its invalidation and directing a new hearing.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references previous High Court decisions to bolster its stance on the proper evaluation of risks in parole decisions:

• Broadbent v The Parole Board of England and Wales [2005] EWHC 1207 (Admin) – Emphasizes that mere allegations should not influence risk assessments without substantive evidence.
• R (J) v The Parole Board [2010] EWHC 919 (Admin) – Reiterates that decisions must be grounded in proven facts rather than unsubstantiated claims.
• R (McHale) v The Secretary of State for Justice [2010] EWHC 3657 (Admin) – Highlights the necessity for clear and adequate reasoning in parole decisions.

These precedents collectively underscore the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that parole decisions are based on verifiable information, thereby safeguarding against unjustified infringements on an individual's liberty.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning hinged on the distinction between allegations and established facts. It underscored that the Parole Board erred by treating an unproven allegation of domestic violence as a definitive factor in assessing Delaney's risk. The Board allegedly failed to conduct a thorough investigation or provide concrete evidence to support its conclusions about the risk posed by Delaney upon release.

Moreover, the court critiqued the Board's failure to engage in a proper balancing exercise when considering a transfer to open conditions. According to the applicable Parole Board Directions under Section 32(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, such decisions require evaluating multiple factors, including the inmate's progress, likelihood of compliance, trustworthiness, and potential benefits from open conditions. The judgment found that the Parole Board inadequately addressed these factors, overly relying on the questionable risk assessment.

Impact

This judgment sets a precedent reinforcing the necessity for the Parole Board to base its decisions on substantiated evidence rather than mere allegations. It emphasizes that risk assessments must be thorough, transparent, and justifiable, ensuring that individuals are not unjustly deprived of their liberty based on unverified claims. Future parole cases will likely see heightened scrutiny of the evidence underpinning risk assessments, promoting more rigorous and fair decision-making processes within the Parole Board.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Wednesbury Unreasonableness: A legal standard used to assess whether a decision-maker has acted irrationally or unreasonably. If a decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it, it may be overturned.

Balancing Exercise: A process where different factors are weighed against each other to reach a decision. In parole cases, this involves assessing both the risks posed by the inmate and the potential benefits of their release.

Parole Licence Revocation: The process by which a parole board decides to revoke the conditional release of an inmate, resulting in their return to prison.

Open Conditions: Less restrictive parole conditions allowing the inmate more freedom, typically accompanied by specific requirements to ensure public safety and compliance.

Conclusion

The High Court's decision in Delaney v. Parole Board serves as a pivotal reminder of the paramount importance of evidence-based risk assessments in parole decisions. By invalidating the Parole Board's reliance on unsubstantiated allegations, the court reinforced the necessity for due diligence, transparency, and fairness in evaluating whether an individual poses a genuine threat to public safety upon release. This judgment not only shapes the procedural standards for future parole considerations but also upholds the fundamental legal principle that liberty should not be jeopardized without clear and credible justification.