Parole board's decision upheld in reconsideration case

5 Feb 2025Court Report

A parole board decision to deny release and transfer to open conditions is upheld after reconsideration

Background

The case involved the reconsideration of a parole board decision concerning a prisoner who had been recalled to prison multiple times. The applicant, who was 46 years old at the time of the oral hearing, had a history of substance misuse and violent offences. The parole panel was tasked with deciding whether to direct the applicant's release or recommend progression to an open prison.

Legal Framework

The parole board's decision was governed by the Parole Board Rules 2019, which outline the criteria for reconsideration. The rules specify that decisions on release eligibility are subject to reconsideration, but recommendations for transfer to open conditions are not. The panel's decision was evaluated against the standards of irrationality, procedural unfairness, and error of law.

Grounds for Reconsideration

The applicant's legal adviser submitted several grounds for reconsideration. These included claims that the recall test was not met, excessive weight was placed on drug use, and the panel had insufficient evidence to conclude that risk was unmanageable in the community. The applicant also raised concerns about procedural fairness and the handling of GPS tracking data.

Discussion of Grounds

The panel's decision was scrutinised under the irrationality test, which assesses whether a decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have reached it. The panel's concerns about the applicant's drug misuse were deemed justified, given the strong association between substance misuse and the applicant's criminal behaviour. The panel's decision not to direct release was found to be rational and supported by evidence.

Procedural Fairness

The applicant argued that the panel should have adjourned the hearing to clarify points raised during cross-examination. However, the panel concluded that additional information would not have affected their decision, as similar arrangements had been unsuccessful in the past. The panel's decision not to adjourn was not found to be procedurally improper.

Conclusion

The reconsideration panel upheld the original decision, finding no grounds for irrationality or procedural unfairness. The panel's decision was supported by substantial evidence, and the applicant's risk factors, including substance misuse and a history of violent offences, were appropriately considered.