header-logo header-logo

Justice secretary’s interference may have caused Parole Board errors

22 March 2023
Issue: 8018 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-detail
Justice secretary Dominic Raab acted unlawfully in amending the rules governing Parole Board hearings, the High Court has held.

Rule 2(2) of Raab’s amending statutory instrument, which came into force in July 2022, barred HM Prison and Probation Service staff from recommending any prisoner’s release, transfer or refusal. It provided, where appropriate, the secretary of state would present a ‘single view’ on the prisoner’s suitability for release. Also in July, the justice secretary issued guidance on the rule change, which was used in staff training. This guidance was challenged in court and replaced with new guidance in October. However, no further training was provided on the change.

Two prisoners who had applied to the Parole Board brought a legal challenge.

Giving judgment in R (on the application of Bailey and another) v Secretary of State for Justice [2023] EWHC 555 (Admin) last week, Lady Justice Macur and Mr Justice Chamberlain held Raab’s decision to make rule 2(2) unlawful because it had no rational justification and its purpose ‘to suppress or enable the suppression of relevant opinion evidence which differed from his own view’ was ‘improper’.

Moreover, they held that the decision to promulgate both the July and October guidance was unlawful.

Macur LJ and Chamberlain J noted it was ‘well established that, when exercising powers in relation to the Board, the Secretary of State must not do anything that undermines or would be perceived as undermining the independence of the Board or that encroaches upon or interferes with the exercise by the Board of its judicial responsibilities’.

They stated: ‘The July and October Guidance was bound to cause report writers to breach their legal obligations. The evidence shows that it did so in the first claimant's case… More generally, it is plain that the July and October Guidance will have caused report writers to breach their legal obligations in a large number of cases… It is not possible to say with certainty what effects this guidance has had… But its promulgation may well have resulted in prisoners being released who would not otherwise have been released and in prisoners not being released who would otherwise have been released.’

Issue: 8018 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll