Parole board decision challenged by prisoner

Introduction

The High Court, under the judgment of Mr Justice Eyre, quashed a decision by the Parole Board for England and Wales, which had refused an oral hearing for Mr. Daniel Owen's parole review. The court found that fairness required an oral hearing, given the disputed facts and the importance of participatory justice.

Background

Mr. Daniel Owen, the claimant, was serving a 14-year sentence for multiple offences, including indecent assault and rape. After being released on licence in February 2022, he was recalled to custody in June 2022. The recall was triggered by concerns over his conduct, which included forming relationships with women who had children and failing to disclose this to his offender manager.

Parole Board's Decision

The Parole Board initially refused Mr. Owen's request for an oral hearing in July 2024, citing sufficient information in the dossier to make an informed decision. The Board maintained this stance in September 2024, despite further submissions by Mr. Owen's solicitors highlighting disputes over factual matters and the need for an oral hearing to assess risk and manageability.

Legal Framework

The decision was challenged under the principles established in R (Osborn) v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61, which dictate that the Parole Board should hold an oral hearing whenever fairness requires it. The court must determine whether a fair procedure was followed, not merely review the reasonableness of the decision-maker's judgment.

Disputed Facts

Key areas of dispute included Mr. Owen's conduct in prison, his engagement in risk reduction work, and differing assessments regarding his potential Offender Personality Disorder. These issues were deemed significant enough to warrant an oral hearing, as they impacted the assessment of risk and Mr. Owen's ability to participate in the decision-making process.

High Court's Analysis

Mr Justice Eyre found that the Parole Board's reliance on a previous oral hearing in 2023 did not justify denying a new hearing, given the changes in circumstances. The court emphasized the importance of participatory justice and the need for Mr. Owen to articulate his position orally, especially in light of disputed facts and potential errors in the dossier.

Conclusion

The High Court concluded that the Parole Board's decision not to hold an oral hearing was procedurally unfair. The judgment underscored the necessity of an oral hearing to ensure a fair assessment of Mr. Owen's case, leading to the quashing of the Board's decision.

Learn More

For more information on UK parole procedures and prisoners' rights, see BeCivil's guide to UK Employment Law.