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

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R (Osborn) v Parole Board [2014] AC 1115	Procedural fairness requires oral hearings where fairness demands, including assessment of disputed facts and credibility.	Guided the revision of Defendant’s policy on oral hearings; court applied its principles to assess whether oral hearings were required in this case.
R v Parole Board ex parte Oyston [2000] Prison LR 45	Denial of guilt should not be treated as a conclusive bar to risk assessment or recategorisation; a broad and contextual approach is required.	Appellant relied on it to challenge the decisions; court distinguished the present case as not applying a mechanistic denial bar.
R (Kaiyam) v Secretary of State for Justice [2015] AC 1344	Duty to provide prisoners with a reasonable opportunity to rehabilitate themselves and demonstrate reduced risk.	Court applied it to assess whether the Defendant breached the duty to provide offending behaviour work, concluding no breach here.
Rangelov v Germany (22 March 2012) ECtHR (unreported)	Consideration of individual therapy for prisoners maintaining innocence in rehabilitation context.	Referenced by appellant but court found it not applicable to extend the duty beyond Kaiyam in this case.
R v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Duggan [1994] 3 All ER 277	Recognition of similarity between Parole Board and categorisation decisions; procedural fairness considerations.	Relied on to argue for oral hearings; court acknowledged distinctions between Parole Board and CART processes.
R (Roberts) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2004] EWHC 679 (Admin)	Continued denial of guilt in serious offences may preclude finding of reduced risk for recategorisation.	Defendant cited to support that denial here justified refusal to recategorise.
R (Quaddy) v Governor of HMP Long Lartin [2013] EWHC 2029 (Admin)	Balancing approach to risk assessment in recategorisation, distinguishing between types of offenders.	Supported the view that denial of guilt in serious violent offences can be determinative in risk assessment.
R (Bourke) v Secretary of State for Justice [2012] EWHC 4041 (Admin)	Guidance on oral hearings for prisoners denying guilt with good prison records but impasse in risk assessment.	Defendant argued the approach was consistent with Osborn and applicable here.
Hassett and Price v Secretary of State for Justice [2015] EWHC 3723 (Admin)	Consideration of legality of refusal to hold oral hearings in CART reviews post-Osborn and revised instructions.	Court noted but did not consider it persuasive authority for this case due to different factual and procedural contexts.

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.