Judicial review challenge on parole board decision

High Court reviews procedural fairness in parole board's refusal of oral hearing for recalled prisoner

The High Court, presided over by Deputy Judge Kate Grange KC, reviewed the procedural fairness of the Parole Board's decision to deny an oral hearing to Christopher Newton, who was recalled to prison after breaching licence conditions. The case raised significant questions about the application of procedural fairness standards as outlined in the landmark case of R (Osborn) v Parole Board [2014] AC 1115.

Christopher Newton, a 53-year-old serving prisoner at HMP Risley, was recalled to custody in June 2024 after being released on licence in March 2020. His recall was triggered by alleged breaches of licence conditions, including failure to comply with notification requirements under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and possession of multiple undeclared mobile phones.

The Parole Board's decision to refuse an oral hearing was contested by Newton, who argued that procedural fairness required such a hearing. His legal team, led by Olivia Beach, argued that the refusal contravened the principles set out in Osborn, which emphasises the importance of oral hearings in cases where fairness demands it.

Newton's legal representatives highlighted several factual disputes that warranted an oral hearing, including the nature of items found at his residence, which were characterised as weapons, and the circumstances surrounding his alleged breach of notification requirements. They argued that these issues could not be adequately addressed without an oral hearing.

The High Court found that the Parole Board had failed to properly consider the need for an oral hearing, particularly given the factual disputes and the significant impact of the decision on Newton's liberty. The Court emphasised that the principles of procedural fairness required the Parole Board to allow Newton the opportunity to present his case orally.

In its judgment, the High Court quashed the Parole Board's decision and directed that an oral hearing be held as soon as reasonably practicable. The Court underscored the importance of participatory justice and the need for decision-making bodies to consider the perspectives of individuals whose rights are significantly affected by their decisions.

This case serves as a reminder of the critical role of procedural fairness in the parole process and the need for decision-makers to adhere to established legal standards when determining the rights of individuals subject to recall.

Learn More

For more information on procedural fairness in parole decisions, see BeCivil's guide to UK Employment Law.

Copyright & permissions