An Allegation as Proof of a Crime: R (Delaney) v Parole Board [2019] EWHC 779 (Admin)

Published date01 August 2019
Date01 August 2019
DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1177/0022018319868329
Subject MatterCase Notes
Case Note
An Allegation as Proof
of a Crime
R (Delaney) v Parole Board [2019] EWHC 779 (Admin)
Keywords
Life sentence prisoner, release on licence, allegations of further offending, procedure
for Parole Board panel
The Claimant was a mandatory life sentence prisoner having been convicted in July 2006 of murder. The
Claimant, a former boxer, was wo rking as door security when he pun ched a pub-goer sufficiently
violently to cause the victim to fall backwards and hit his head on the ground, resulting in death, that
the jury was sure that he intended really serious harm. The Claimant’s minimum term was set at 11 years
and he became eligible for release on licence in October 2016.
In February 2017, the Claimant was released on licence by the Parole Board. However, his licence
was revoked by the Secretary of State for Justice following his arrest on 29 October 2017 on suspicion of
a series of domestic assaults against a woman with whom he had struck up a relationship following his
release from custody. The allegations against the Claimant were relatively serious and included allega-
tions that he had fractured his partner’s wrist, perforated her eardrum and urinated upon her.
As a result of the revocation of the Claimant’s licence, his case was referred by the Secretary of State
for Justice to the Parole Board to consider his re-release on licence or, if re-release was considered
inappropriate, a transfer to open conditions. On 18 June 2018, the Parole Board concluded at an oral
hearing that the Claimant should not be released or transferred to open conditions.
The Claimant sought to judicially review the decisions on the grounds that: (1) the decision not to
release him was Wednesbury unreasonable (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury
Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223) on the basis that the conclusion was based on the view that the risk he
posed was unacceptably high; (2) the reasons given by the Parole Board were inadequate for the
conclusions it had reached on risk; and (3) the Parole Board, having concluded that he should not be
re-released, had made the same leap in respect of a transfer to open conditions. Permission to apply for
judicial review was granted on the papers.
Held, by the Administrative Court (Andrew Baker J) allowing the claim for judicial review, that
(1) where allegations of further offending had been made against a released prisoner which resulted in
the revocation of licence, the Parole Board could not take those allegations (whatever the seriousness of
them) at face value so as to conclude that the prisoner presented a particular type or degree of risk (at
[10]). (2) Where the undisputed facts of the allegations did not lead to a conclusion one way or the other,
the Parole Board must either (a) disregard the allegations of furth er offending or (b) undertake an
investigation and consideration of any evidence that may be presented which would enable it to make
findings of fact which could form a factual basis for any conclusion on the question of risk (at [12]).
Commentary
The test applied by the Parole Board when determining whether to release a life sentence prisoner is
whether it is necessary for the protection of the public that they are detained. The problem of allegations
The Journal of Criminal Law
2019, Vol. 83(4) 304–306
ªThe Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0022018319868329
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT