William Frederick Ian Beggs for Judicial Review of a decision of the Parole Board for Scotland dated 27 February 2024 (Court of Session)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns a petition for judicial review of a decision by the Parole Board for Scotland dated 27 February 2024, refusing to release the Petitioner from prison on licence. The Petitioner is serving a life sentence imposed on 12 October 2001 for the murder of an individual, with a punishment part of 20 years that expired on 28 December 2019. The Petitioner challenged the Board's decision on grounds that it took into account an irrelevant consideration—an allegation relating to a separate murder charge from 1987, for which the Petitioner’s conviction had been quashed—and failed to consider a relevant opinion from senior counsel questioning the reliability of evidence used at trial.

The Parole Board is a statutory body responsible for deciding on the release of life prisoners under the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993, requiring release only if it is no longer necessary for public protection that the prisoner remain confined. The Board refused release initially in January 2020 and again in February 2024 after several hearings and consideration of evidence including risk assessments and submissions from the Petitioner’s solicitor.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Did the Parole Board take into account an irrelevant consideration by relying on the quashed 1987 murder allegation?
2. Did the Parole Board fail to take account of a relevant consideration, namely the opinion of senior counsel regarding discredited evidence from the Petitioner’s murder trial?
3. If either of the above, should the court grant the orders sought by the Petitioner, including reduction of the Board’s decision and a direction for reconsideration?

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Parole Board unlawfully relied on an irrelevant consideration by including the quashed murder allegation from 1987 in risk assessments, which materially influenced the Board’s decision.
• The Board failed to consider a relevant opinion from senior counsel that questioned the reliability of a police officer’s evidence used at trial, which could affect the risk assessment and the validity of the Petitioner’s conviction.
• The Board’s risk assessments, which referred to the quashed allegation, should have been scrutinised more meticulously given the Petitioner’s post-tariff status, applying the principle of anxious scrutiny.
• The Board should have made factual findings on the quashed allegation before relying on it, as required by precedent.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Board did not take into account the quashed allegation as a factor in its decision, explicitly stating it placed no weight on it and assessing risk based solely on convictions.
• The risk assessments that mentioned the quashed allegation did so only as background; the Board’s ultimate decision was independent of this and the allegation was irrelevant to the statutory test for release.
• The opinion from senior counsel was irrelevant to the Board’s decision because the Petitioner’s conviction had not been successfully appealed and the Board must proceed on the basis of a valid conviction.
• The Petitioner’s solicitor did not rely on the senior counsel’s opinion in submissions, so the Board was not required to address it.
• The Board applied the statutory test correctly and the decision withstands anxious scrutiny given the public protection concerns.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court undertook a detailed examination of whether the Parole Board erred by considering irrelevant information or failing to consider relevant factors. It found that the Board explicitly excluded the quashed 1987 murder allegation from its risk assessment, relying instead on the Petitioner’s valid convictions. Although the risk assessments referred to the quashed allegation, the Board made clear it placed no weight on it and conducted its own independent risk evaluation accordingly.

Regarding the senior counsel’s opinion challenging the reliability of a police officer’s evidence, the court noted that this was speculative and had not led to any successful appeal. The opinion was not referred to by the Petitioner’s solicitor during submissions and thus the Board was not obliged to address it. The Board was required to proceed on the basis of the valid murder conviction, and the opinion was irrelevant to the statutory test for release.

Applying the principle of anxious scrutiny, the court confirmed that the Board’s reasoning met the necessary standard, particularly given the significant public protection concerns and the length of time the Petitioner had been confined beyond tariff. The Board’s decision was not irrational or unlawful, and the grounds for judicial review failed.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the petition for judicial review.

The court upheld the Parole Board’s decision refusing release on licence. The Petitioner’s challenges concerning irrelevant and relevant considerations were rejected. The decision confirms that the Parole Board may exclude quashed allegations from risk assessments and is not required to consider speculative opinions that have not resulted in successful appeals. No new precedent was established; the ruling affirms established principles of anxious scrutiny and statutory interpretation in parole decisions. The expenses were awarded in favour of the Board but modified to nil due to the Petitioner’s assisted person status.