Goldsmith: High Court declines to compel fresh open-prison decision before Parole Board review

The Administrative Court has quashed a decision by the Secretary of State for Justice refusing to transfer a prisoner to open conditions, while declining to order that a fresh decision be taken within 21 days.

Sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, Andrew Kinnier KC handed down judgement on 3 July 2026 in The King (on the application of Simon Goldsmith) v Secretary of State for Justice [2026] EWHC 1680 (Admin). The ruling addressed the question of relief following his earlier judgement of 26 June 2026 ([2026] EWHC 1626 (Admin)), which allowed judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision of 3 February 2025 not to move Mr Goldsmith to an open prison.

The parties agreed much of the outcome. The decision would be quashed, and the Secretary of State would pay the claimant's reasonably incurred costs on the standard basis, subject to detailed assessment, with a payment on account of 60 per cent within 14 days of receipt of the schedule of costs. The claimant's publicly funded costs would be assessed under the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013 and CPR 47.18.

The single contested issue was the claimant's application for a direction requiring the Secretary of State to reach a fresh decision within 21 days.

The claimant, represented by Stuart Withers, accepted that relief is discretionary but argued that a quashing order ordinarily obliges the decision-maker to reconsider lawfully, relying on R (Imam) v London Borough of Croydon [2023] UKSC. He contended that the Secretary of State is the sole decision-maker, not bound to consult or to follow the Parole Board, citing Sneddon, and had not sought updated Board advice before the February 2025 decision. Recent material was said to be available on which a decision could now be taken, and there was a substantive advantage in swift resolution given the time Mr Goldsmith had spent over tariff, the delay in the litigation, and uncertainty over whether the Board's hearing listed for 28 August 2026 would proceed.

Richard Evans, for the Secretary of State, resisted the direction. The Board's advice of 30 August 2023 was now nearly three years old and had been overtaken by events, in particular the claimant's transfer from a Category B to a Category C establishment in September 2025. With the review listed for late August, any further delay would be slight. He added that a fresh decision taken now would likely prompt withdrawal of the request for Board advice, depriving the claimant of that safeguard should the outcome prove unfavourable.

The deputy judge declined to make the direction. He reaffirmed that public law remedies are discretionary (Imam, para 42; R (Edwards) v Environment Agency [2008] 1 WLR 1587), and noted Lord Sales' observation that a mandatory order may undermine an authority's ability to discharge functions conferred by Parliament, leaving a matter better placed in the hands of a public authority equipped with full information.

On the facts, it was preferable for the Secretary of State to decide with the benefit of the Board's up-to-date recommendation rather than on advice approaching three years old. That consideration bore directly on whether Mr Goldsmith could show that he had "internalised" his learning since 2023. The Category C transfer rendered the earlier advice outdated in any event, and although recent reports existed, a direction would still oblige reliance on the superseded 2023 advice. The suggested risk of postponement of the August hearing was, the judge found, neither real nor substantial.

The court allowed the claim, quashed the decision, and made the agreed costs orders.