Morgan v Secretary of State for Justice

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff is a Category A prisoner convicted of murder in 1996, serving his sentence at a high-security prison. He seeks judicial review of decisions by the Defendant's Category A Review Team ("CART") refusing to recategorise him from Category A to Category B and denying him an oral hearing prior to the categorisation decision. The Plaintiff also claims he was not provided a proper opportunity to undertake offending behaviour programmes and seeks a declaration to that effect.

The initial claim related to a January 2014 CART decision, with a further decision in January 2015 also challenged following procedural developments. The 2015 decision was made under a revised policy on oral hearings prompted by a Supreme Court judgment. The Defendant disputes the claim, arguing the decisions were lawful and the Plaintiff was offered appropriate opportunities for offending behaviour work, which he refused due to denial of the offence.

The background of the offence includes the Plaintiff's conviction for the murder of a 19-year-old victim with a sexual motivation. The Plaintiff maintains innocence and has consistently refused to engage in offending behaviour programmes that require admission of guilt. The Plaintiff's prison behaviour has been good, with positive reports on conduct and engagement in vocational courses.

The CART system categorises prisoners based on risk, with Category A being the highest risk level. Annual reviews are conducted, and decisions on downgrading require clear and convincing evidence of significant risk reduction. The Plaintiff's 2014 review was conducted without a hearing but with written representations by his solicitors. The 2015 review was conducted by the Deputy Director Custody High Security ("DDC") with no new representations, aware of ongoing proceedings.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the denial of the offence by the Plaintiff unlawfully prevented recategorisation from Category A to Category B.
2. Whether the refusal to grant an oral hearing prior to the categorisation decisions was lawful, particularly in light of the Supreme Court decision in R (Osborn) v Parole Board and the revised policy instruction.
3. Whether the Defendant breached a duty to provide the Plaintiff with a reasonable opportunity to undertake offending behaviour programmes.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The denial of the offence was treated as a decisive bar to recategorisation, contrary to the Court of Appeal’s ruling in R v Parole Board ex parte Oyston.
• The refusal to hold oral hearings in 2014 and 2015 was unlawful and contrary to the principles established in Osborn and the revised policy instruction.
• Fairness required an oral hearing to properly assess the Plaintiff’s credibility and risk reduction.
• The Defendant failed to provide a reasonable opportunity for offending behaviour work, breaching the duty outlined in R (Kaiyam) v Secretary of State for Justice and relevant Strasbourg jurisprudence.
• New offending behaviour programmes suitable for prisoners maintaining innocence exist or are in development, and failure to provide such programmes constitutes a breach.

Defendant's Arguments

• The categorisation decisions were rational and lawfully took into account all relevant factors, including the Plaintiff’s denial of guilt, which was a significant but not necessarily conclusive factor.
• The circumstances of the offence and the Plaintiff’s refusal to engage in offending behaviour work justified the decisions.
• Oral hearings are not routinely necessary in CART reviews due to differences from the Parole Board, and no factual disputes or expert disagreements warranted such hearings here.
• The duty to provide offending behaviour programmes was fulfilled by offering reasonable opportunities; the Plaintiff’s refusal to participate in available programmes negates any breach.
• Reliance on first-instance authorities supports the view that denial of guilt in serious violent offences may preclude findings of reduced risk.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully analysed the decisions of CART and the DDC in light of the Plaintiff’s denial of guilt and good prison behaviour. It found that the decisions did not treat denial of the offence as an absolute bar to recategorisation but rather as part of a broader balancing exercise requiring evidence of offence-related insight and risk reduction. Given the serious and sexual nature of the offence, the absence of such insight meant good behaviour alone was insufficient to demonstrate reduced risk.

The court distinguished the present case from the precedent in Oyston, noting that the Plaintiff’s denial was not disregarded but that no evidence of lifestyle change or insight was present. The court accepted that the DDC’s statement of "no evidence" of progress did not ignore good behaviour but reflected its limited weight in this context.

Regarding oral hearings, the court acknowledged the Supreme Court’s decision in Osborn and the revised policy instruction requiring greater consideration of fairness in granting oral hearings. However, it found that the Plaintiff had ample opportunity to present his case locally, and no factual disputes or expert disagreements existed that warranted an oral hearing. The Plaintiff’s credibility was not in issue as the decisions proceeded on the basis of the conviction. The court concluded that fairness did not require oral hearings in either 2014 or 2015.

On the duty to provide offending behaviour programmes, the court referred to the decision in Kaiyam and held that the Defendant had met the duty by offering reasonable opportunities. The Plaintiff’s refusal to engage in available programmes meant no breach occurred. The development of new programmes for those maintaining innocence was not a current obligation.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the Plaintiff’s claim for judicial review on all grounds.

The direct effect is that the Defendant’s decisions refusing recategorisation and oral hearings are upheld, and no declaration is made regarding entitlement to oral hearings or provision of offending behaviour work beyond what has already been afforded. The judgment clarifies that denial of guilt, while significant, is not an automatic bar but absence of offence-related insight justifies refusal to recategorise in serious violent cases. The ruling does not set new precedent but affirms existing principles and distinguishes the present facts from prior authorities. Future considerations for oral hearings or rehabilitative opportunities remain open depending on changed circumstances or developments in offending behaviour programmes.