Carr, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff is a Restricted Status prisoner serving a life sentence imposed in 1997 for a murder committed in 1992 when the Plaintiff was 12 years old. The offence involved multiple stab wounds inflicted on a stranger, accompanied by theft and sexual mutilation. The Plaintiff's responsibility emerged in 1995 after boasting about the murder while serving an indeterminate sentence for a prior stabbing offence. The Plaintiff has a history of violent and sexualised behaviour, including assaults in psychiatric units and prisons. She has been held in various high-security hospitals and prisons, currently designated as a Restricted Status prisoner since 2015.

On 3 December 2018, the Plaintiff was moved to a prison facility and subsequently transferred following a violent incident in 2019. The Local Advisory Panel (LAP) decided on 14 June 2019 not to recommend downgrading her Restricted Status. On 8 July 2019, the Category A Review Team (CART) confirmed the decision not to downgrade without holding an oral hearing. The Plaintiff's solicitors challenged this decision by pre-action protocol letter on 13 September 2019, to which the Defendant responded maintaining the decision. The Plaintiff issued a claim on 7 October 2019. Permission to seek judicial review was initially refused on 26 November 2019. A renewed application for permission was made and refused following a hearing on 21 February 2020.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Defendant was required to hold an oral hearing before deciding not to downgrade the Plaintiff's Restricted Status.
2. Whether the refusal to downgrade without an oral hearing was unfair or procedurally improper.
3. Whether the Defendant failed to properly consider evidence of risk reduction through the Plaintiff's positive custodial behaviour.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge erred by relying on a document not before CART, specifically the minutes of a meeting held after the decision, which referred to the Plaintiff's unsuitability for a PIPE unit due to her Restricted Status and other ongoing risk reduction work. If this document had been available earlier, the Plaintiff might have challenged the decision or requested an oral hearing.
• The absence of expert evidence was not properly addressed by the judge, and assessing risk reduction without such evidence is unfair and contrary to the interests of justice.
• The judge failed to properly weigh negative behaviour evidence against the argument that the Plaintiff should be downgraded to access PIPE interventions.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Plaintiff was substantially post-tariff, but this alone did not mandate an oral hearing.
• There was no impasse, as other risk reduction work besides PIPE was available and being undertaken.
• No dispute existed in expert evidence to necessitate an oral hearing.
• The minutes of the 25 October 2019 meeting showed that a PIPE unit was not necessarily suitable for the Plaintiff and other interventions were in place.
• CART's decision was rational, based on the absence of convincing evidence of significant risk reduction.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by identifying the relevant test applied by CART: whether there was convincing evidence that the Plaintiff's risk of re-offending had significantly reduced. As an expert body, CART was competent to make this factual assessment. The absence of any request or representations from the Plaintiff weighed in favour of a paper-based decision. The court noted that oral hearings are rarely necessary in security categorisation decisions, distinguishing them from judicial rights determinations.

The court considered the Local Advisory Panel's recommendation against downgrading and the lack of psychological evidence supporting a downgrade. It acknowledged the Plaintiff's recent disclosures of violent thoughts and incidents, as well as expert psychological reports recommending further intervention before progression. Although some factors favored an oral hearing under the relevant instructions, these were not determinative. The fundamental issue was whether risk had diminished sufficiently to justify a downgrade, which CART could fairly decide on the papers.

The court rejected the argument that an impasse existed due to the Plaintiff's Restricted Status preventing access to a PIPE unit, noting that PIPE outreach work was ongoing and that interventions had been adjusted to avoid overloading the Plaintiff. The court found no error in the judge's reference to post-decision meeting minutes, as these reflected submissions made by the Defendant and did not introduce new material to the decision maker.

The court emphasized that CART's role was not to make sentence planning decisions but to assess risk reduction evidence. The existence of an expert psychological report not initially in the dossier did not compel an oral hearing, especially in the absence of conflicting expert opinions. Overall, the court found no arguable case of illegality or procedural impropriety in the refusal to hold an oral hearing or in the decision not to downgrade.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED PERMISSION to seek judicial review of the decision not to downgrade the Plaintiff's Restricted Status without an oral hearing.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Plaintiff remains classified as a Restricted Status prisoner, with no oral hearing required to reconsider this categorisation at this stage. The decision does not establish new legal precedent but affirms the administrative discretion of CART in security categorisation decisions and the limited circumstances in which oral hearings are mandated.