Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellant is a Category A prisoner serving a life sentence who has been held at The Prison. The Respondent (the official responsible for prison management) and its officials manage classification and review under the Prison Act 1952, the Prison Rules 1999 and PSI 08/2013 (revised 10 June 2016). A Local Advisory Panel (LAP) recommended downgrading the Appellant to Category B in reports dated 2 February 2024 and 15 November 2024. The Deputy Director of Custody High Security ("the DDC") reviewed the dossier and, by decisions communicated 23 April 2024 and 22 January 2025, maintained the Appellant's Category A classification and declined to grant an oral hearing.
The Appellant sought judicial review challenging (i) the rationality of the DDC's decision to maintain Category A and (ii) procedural unfairness in refusing an oral hearing. Permission for judicial review was eventually granted and, after hearings, the High Court (Judge Ward sitting as a High Court judge) refused relief in a judgment dated 4 June 2025. The Appellant appeals that refusal to the Court of Appeal. This summary reflects the Court of Appeal majority reasons (Judge Baker delivering the leading judgment, Judges Miles and Jackson agreeing).
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether procedural fairness at common law required the DDC to grant an oral hearing before deciding to maintain the Appellant's Category A classification.
- Whether the High Court judge erred in law by (a) applying an incorrect test in interpreting PSI 4.7 (notably the meaning of "dispute of fact" or "dispute between experts"), (b) failing to treat the disagreement between the LAP and the DDC as itself a "dispute" under PSI 4.7, and (c) accepting the Respondent's post‑hearing note about omitted earlier expert reports without a signed witness statement.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The judge misapplied PSI 4.7 by treating "dispute of fact" and "dispute between experts" narrowly, effectively as a requirement of a disputed "relevant primary fact".
- The LAP's written recommendation in favour of downgrading, juxtaposed with the DDC's decision to maintain Category A, constituted a relevant dispute under PSI 4.7(b) that should have led to an oral hearing.
- The judge should not have accepted the Respondent's assertion that earlier expert reports were before the DDC without tangible supporting evidence such as a signed witness statement; reliance on counsel's note was insufficient.
Respondent's Arguments
- The judge applied the correct approach: PSI 4.6 and 4.7 are guides and require fact-specific judgments by the DDC; there were no important disputed facts or expert disputes that would have made an oral hearing necessary.
- Treating every instance where the DDC disagreed with a LAP recommendation as requiring an oral hearing would be incompatible with the PSI and authorities; the DDC must exercise evaluative judgment.
- Although a signed witness statement would have been preferable about the omitted earlier reports, the omission arose after the hearing and the Respondent's position communicated by counsel could properly be accepted in the absence of dispute; no procedural defect requiring reversal arose.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| R(Osborn) v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61 |
Guidance on when an oral hearing is required in serious prisoner‑related decisions (factors such as disputed important facts, need to assess credibility, and where face‑to‑face assessment aids risk evaluation). |
Used as influential guidance; the court and PSI recognise Osborn's principles but distinguish Parole Board context from Category A classification decisions; Osborn informed revision of PSI 08/2013. |
| R(Mackay) v SSJ [2011] EWCA Civ 522 |
Recognition that CART/DDC decisions differ from Parole Board decisions; common law may sometimes require oral hearings but they will be rare; the court decides what fairness requires. |
Applied to emphasise difference between Parole Board and CART/DDC functions and to frame standard of review: court asks whether refusal of oral hearing was wrong, not merely unreasonable. |
| R(Hassett) v SSJ [2017] EWCA Civ 331 |
Consideration of PSI 08/2013 post‑Osborn; held PSI guidance lawful and not apt to mislead into applying a lower standard of fairness; CART/director distinct from Parole Board. |
Relied upon to support the proposition that PSI 4.7 provides lawful general guidance and that some Osborn factors have less force in the CART/DDC context. |
| R(Clarke) v SSJ [2024] EWCA Civ 861 |
Interpretation of PSI 4.6 and 4.7: 4.6's overarching points are mandatory in approach; 4.7 lists factors that "would tend" to favour oral hearings but does not prescribe weights. |
Applied to confirm that decision‑makers must consider each case on its facts and that paragraph 4.7 is indicative guidance; supports deference to DDC judgments where conscientiously made. |
| R v (Williams) v Home Secretary [2002] EWCA Civ 498 |
Authority cited for distinguishing the Parole Board's role from CART/director functions (contextual explanation of difference of substance). |
Cited to support the point that CART/DDC decisions concern risk if unlawfully at large, a different rationale to Parole Board release decisions. |
| R(Police Superintendents' Association) v Police Remuneration Review Body and another [2023] EWHC 1838 (Admin) |
Discussed in relation to the "best evidence" principle and when a signed witness statement or document is required to prove a factual point raised during proceedings. |
Applied to explain that the best evidence principle may require formal evidence where a matter is disputed; here the court accepted the Respondent's position communicated by counsel in the absence of dispute and no non‑disclosure. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court began from the statutory framework (Prison Act 1952, Prison Rules 1999) and the PSI governing Category A reviews. It reviewed authorities distinguishing Parole Board decisions from CART/DDC classification decisions (Osborn, Mackay, Hassett, Clarke) and reiterated that PSI 4.7 provides indicative factors rather than mandatory rules; 4.6's overarching points must be applied on the facts.
The Court examined the evidential context: the Appellant's serious index offending and custodial history, prior multidisciplinary assessments (including an HCR‑20 in 2017 assessing high risk), the LAP's recommendation to downgrade based on psychological reports and prison progress, and the DDC's view that more sustained good behaviour was required to show "convincing evidence" of significant risk reduction if unlawfully at large.
The Court analysed whether there were disputed important facts or contested expert material such that an oral hearing was necessary. It concluded there were no important factual disputes or significant expert disagreements: the contested matters advanced on appeal were matters of judgment (whether the recent positive behaviour amounted to "convincing evidence") rather than primary factual disputes or tenable expert conflicts that an oral hearing would resolve. The Court accepted the judge's characterisation that no other potentially relevant primary fact was in dispute and found no misunderstanding in the judge's use of that phrase.
Regarding the omitted earlier psychological reports, the Court noted the judge's careful post‑hearing inquiry and accepted the Respondent's counsel's explanation that the earlier reports had informed prior reviews and were effectively before the decision‑maker. The Court held that, in the absence of a dispute and given that the dossier had been reviewed by the Appellant's solicitors, the judge was entitled to accept the Respondent's position communicated by counsel without requiring a signed witness statement.
Applying the law (that the court decides whether the refusal of an oral hearing was wrong) to the facts, the Court concluded the judge was entitled to find the DDC had conscientiously applied PSI guidance and had not been wrong to refuse an oral hearing.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED
Holding: The Court would dismiss the appeal and uphold the High Court judgment refusing judicial review of the DDC's decision to maintain the Appellant's Category A classification without an oral hearing.
Implications: The direct effect is that the DDC's decision to maintain the Appellant's Category A status (and the High Court's refusal of judicial review) stands. The Court applied existing authorities and PSI guidance; it did not establish a new doctrinal rule beyond reaffirming that PSI 4.7 is indicative and that decision‑makers exercise evaluative judgment in context. No broader change to precedent was announced by the judgment.