Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
- MR D GARDNER appeared on behalf of the Claimant
- The Defendant and the Interested Party did not appear and were not represented at the hearing
Judges
- THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ANDREW BAKER
See more information ...
Click here to read the full judgment
Delaney, R (On the Application Of) v. Parole Board of England And Wales
Smart Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
The Plaintiff is a lifer who was convicted of murder and sentenced to a mandatory life sentence in July 2006 following a fatal assault in October 2005 while working as door security. The Plaintiff's minimum term was set at 11 years, making him eligible for release consideration from October 2016. He was released on licence in February 2017 but had his licence revoked in October 2017 after being arrested on suspicion of multiple incidents of domestic violence against a woman he had a relationship with post-release. The allegations included serious injuries and inappropriate conduct. The Plaintiff challenges the Parole Board's decision dated 18 June 2018, which refused to direct his re-release on licence and declined to recommend transfer to open conditions.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Parole Board's conclusion regarding the risk posed by the Plaintiff if re-released was Wednesbury unreasonable.
- Whether the Parole Board provided an adequate and lawful set of reasons for its risk assessment.
- Whether the Parole Board properly conducted the required balancing exercise in deciding not to recommend transfer to open conditions, taking into account all relevant factors under the applicable Standing Directions.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The Parole Board's conclusion on risk was Wednesbury unreasonable and infected the entire decision.
- The reasons given for the risk assessment were unlawfully inadequate, lacking lawful justification for the conclusion reached.
- The Parole Board failed to conduct the necessary balancing exercise when deciding on transfer to open conditions, improperly relying solely on the risk threshold without considering other statutory factors.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Broadbent v The Parole Board of England and Wales [2005] EWHC 1207 (Admin) |
Clarification that an allegation alone cannot justify a finding of risk without evidence; principles on parole risk assessment. |
Supported the proposition that the Parole Board cannot rely solely on an unproven allegation to assess risk. |
| R (J) v The Parole Board [2010] EWHC 919 (Admin) |
Legal standards for assessment of risk and the need for adequate reasoning by the Parole Board. |
Reinforced the requirement for lawful justification of risk conclusions by the Parole Board. |
| R (McHale) v The Secretary of State for Justice [2010] EWHC 3657 (Admin) |
Standards for evidential basis in parole decisions and risk assessments. |
Confirmed that risk assessments must be supported by factual findings beyond mere allegations. |
| R (Hill) v The Parole Board [2012] EWHC 809 (Admin) |
Requirement for the Parole Board to undertake a balancing exercise when considering transfer to open conditions. |
Established the distinction between release decisions and transfer recommendations, emphasizing the balancing exercise. |
| R (Hutt) v The Parole Board [2018] EWHC 141 (Admin) |
Reinforcement of the separate balancing test for transfer to open conditions and the need for proper consideration. |
Highlighted the necessity for the Parole Board to explicitly consider all factors in transfer decisions. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the Parole Board's decision to refuse re-release and transfer to open conditions, focusing on the Board's assessment of risk based on unproven allegations of domestic violence. The Board accepted the police officer's view that the allegations were likely true despite no prosecution, and relied heavily on this to conclude a high risk of violence. The court held that an allegation, without supporting evidence or findings of fact, cannot alone justify a conclusion that the Plaintiff poses a particular risk. The Parole Board failed to identify or investigate any factual basis beyond the allegation to support its risk assessment, rendering its reasoning flawed and unlawful.
Regarding the transfer to open conditions, the court noted the Parole Board acknowledged the distinct balancing exercise required by statute and precedent, which involves weighing risk against benefits and other factors like compliance and trustworthiness. Although the Board's reasoning on this point was brief, the court found it implicitly considered these factors but ultimately found the risk assessment to be overriding. Since the risk assessment was flawed, the entire decision was affected.
Consequently, the court quashed the Parole Board's decision and indicated that a differently constituted panel should rehear the Plaintiff's parole review promptly.
Holding and Implications
The court QUASHED the Parole Board decision dated 18 June 2018. The flawed risk assessment based solely on unproven allegations undermined the lawfulness of the decision not to direct re-release or recommend transfer to open conditions. The court directed that a new parole review be conducted by a differently constituted panel at the earliest opportunity.
The direct effect is to require reconsideration of the Plaintiff's parole status with proper legal reasoning and evidential basis. No new legal precedent was established beyond reaffirming existing principles on risk assessment and the necessity of a balancing exercise for transfer decisions.
Click here to read the full judgment