Andrew Royston Morris v The Parole Board
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Irwin LJ,Mrs Justice McGowan |
| Judgment Date | 25 March 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] EWHC 711 (Admin) |
| Date | 25 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/46/2019 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
The Queen, on the application of
and
[2020] EWHC 711 (Admin)
Lord Justice Irwin
Mrs Justice McGowan
Case No: CO/46/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT (DIVISIONAL COURT)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Philip Rule and Mr Jake Rylatt (instructed by Bailey Nicholson Grayson) for the Claimant
Mr Robert Moretto (instructed by GLD) for the First Defendant
Mr Myles Grandison (instructed by GLD) for the Second Defendant
Hearing date: 14/01/2020
Approved Judgment
Introduction
This case involves issues relating to the conduct of the hearings before the Parole Board when information amounting to unproven allegations of criminal conduct form part of the material before the Board.
Andrew Royston Morris, (“the Claimant”), challenges the decision of the First Defendant, the Parole Board, (“the Board”), of 1 October 2018, to refuse to direct his release from prison but rather to direct his transfer into open conditions, on two surviving grounds:
i) Firstly, that there was procedural unfairness and failing in the manner in which the Board reached its decision on the ground of systematic failings in the procedure which, it is alleged, are in breach of Art. 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights, (“ECHR”), or contrary to common law and procedurally flawed; and
ii) He also challenges the approach of the Board and the Second Defendant, the Secretary of State for Justice, (“SSJ”). In particular, it is argued that the ‘Guidance on Allegations’ provided to assist the Board in reaching its decisions is flawed.
There was a third ground of challenge on the issue of a failure to provide a timely parole hearing which has been resolved and does not form part of these proceedings.
Factual History
The Claimant was sentenced on 19 December 2007 in the Crown Court, sitting in Gloucester, to an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment with a minimum term of 2 years, less the time already served on remand. The outline of the index offence was described in the decision under challenge in the following way:
“In August 2007……you returned home to find that your then partner had changed the locks. You returned an hour later, broke in through the back door and armed yourself with a kitchen knife. You threatened your partner and her brother; and took their mobile phones to prevent them calling the police……When armed police tried to negotiate the safe release of your partner, her brother and your 8-week old daughter, you grabbed your partner and threatened to kill her with the knife. The hostage situation is said to have lasted some hours.”
The Claimant has one other previous conviction. In 2005 he was sentenced to a term of four months' imprisonment. As summarised by one of the Board's decision letters dated 7 January 2016, he was “originally arrested for threats to kill the victim who was a former partner, but the charge was reduced to battery, to which you pleaded guilty. Official reports apparently report that you tried to strangle the victim and that you had possession of a knife.”
In 2012, he was moved into open conditions. He was then released on licence on 28 November 2013. However, the licence was revoked on 19 March 2014 and he was returned to custody the following day. This followed an incident on 1 March 2014, which was described in a ‘Building Better Relationships’ programme report as follows:
“In summary, on 01/03/2014 Mr Morris attended his ex-partner's home (not the index offence victim) where he became verbally abusive, which culminated in him grabbing her by the throat. The victim's male friend intervened and Mr Morris was ejected from the premises. During interview Mr Morris denied being physically aggressive but admitted that the situation became verbally heated. Mr Morris placed most of the blame for this incident onto the victim's male friend who he claims became aggressive towards him. The victim did not want to proceed with the case as she did not want her teenage son and friend to become witnesses. However, having failed to inform his Offender Manager of this developing relationship, Mr Morris was in breach of his licence conditions.”
Following the incident, the Police took a statement from the Claimant's ex-partner. However, she later retracted her statement, so no criminal proceedings resulted. A Parole Assessment Report Offender Manager (‘PAROM 1’) form dated 26 October 2016 refers back to that earlier incident and records that:
“… the behaviour displayed was so similar to the index offence that it was felt that the risk factors arising from close intimate relationships had again been activated. It appears that the Police may have continued with their enquiries (which might have secured a conviction) were it not for the alleged victim retracting her statement in order to shield her child (and another under her care) from becoming a witness at Court and generating Social Services involvement.”
The Board reviewed the Claimant's case on 2 July 2014. On 14 July 2014 it recommended transfer to open conditions. On 18 May 2017, after three years in open conditions, he was returned to closed conditions because he was in breach of his temporary licence. One of the two alleged breaches was that he had visited a gay and bisexual sauna. The other was his failure to disclose an intimate relationship with another individual, (“AW”). The relevant LISP4 report of 2 June 2017 details the circumstances of this breach:
“It was reported to Mr Morris' Offender Manager … via a Domestic Abuse Intervention Service (DAIS) that [AW] and Mr Morris had been in a relationship which ended on 24.04.17. [AW] had contacted DAIS because after she ended the relationship, he had persistently tried to contact her and her friends [between 24 April 2017 and 2 May 2017] and given his previous offending history, she became worried. … It was confirmed by [AW] that their relationship became a sexually intimate one and that Mr Morris had been to her house … There is no suggestion from [AW] that Mr Morris behaved in a threatening or intimidating manner; however as noted above she became concerned when he persistently tried to contact her when she ended the relationship.”
The Claimant denied that this relationship was intimate: he said he viewed it as no more than a friendship and said that there had been no sexual contact between them. He did accept that they had discussed having a child on his release. At the end of the relationship AW made a complaint to the Police that she had received a number of unwanted letters and messages from the Claimant.
He maintains his innocence in relation to the accusations of harassment. On 26 September 2017, the Police confirmed that it had insufficient evidence to charge him with a harassment offence for sending unwanted messages to AW after their relationship ended suddenly. However, on 27 September, the Police did serve him with a “Prevention of Harassment Letter”. The letter was issued by an officer of Stoke Newington Police Station and witnessed by another officer. It warned him that harassment was a criminal offence and that future acts amounting to harassment might lead to arrest and prosecution. The receipt of such a letter is not an admission of the conduct alleged.
Decision Under Challenge: Ground One
The decision under challenge followed a Board hearing on 10 September 2018. At the time of the hearing, five experts (including three psychologists) unanimously recommended that the Claimant be released from prison. However, in its decision, the Board refused to direct release. Instead, it recommended that the SSJ return him to open conditions.
In reaching its decision, the Board considered the 2014 and 2017 allegations as part of its overall assessment of risk:
“Noting your offending history, the circumstances of the index offences, including the trial judge's clearly expressed concerns around your violent behaviour and thinking towards the victim, your arrest in 2014 in relation to an alleged domestic incident, the harassment warning from 2017, and the clear difficulties you have in being fully open and honest with those tasked with managing you, and balancing this with risk-reduction work completed, custodial conduct and identified protective factors, the panel considered your risk of causing serious harm (to future partners) remains high and your risk of causing serious harm to the victim of the index offence must remain at least medium.”
In respect of the alleged 2014 assault, the Board observed:
“ The Panel that met with you in December 2015 extensively explored these matters; they concluded that you gave an ‘inconsistent’ account of your relationship with [the ex-partner], including the circumstances of the alleged assault.”
The Board also considered that –
“…the key issue on progression has been your ability to be fully open and honest with professionals with your lifestyle, especially over relationships and/or friendships you form with women. This lack of honesty and poor insight over what you need to disclose to professionals remains a key concern in respect of managing future risk.”
In deciding not to direct release, the Board stated:
“…your progress beyond the closed estate has been marred by your lack of disclosure of relationships, allegations of assault and harassment against partners, and [breach of ROTL conditions for visiting the sauna].
…
With this positive endorsement of your motivation to be fully open and honest with professionals, the panel was therefore uncomfortable with your evidence during the hearing; in their view, you continue to minimise your offending behaviour, minimised the seriousness of your dishonesty over...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R Dean Pearce v Parole Board of England and Wales
...summary of the relevant provisions which was set out by McGowan J in R (Morris) v Parole Board and Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 711 (Admin) (“ 5 The power to impose an IPP derived from s. 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”). IPPs were later abolished by the ......
-
The Queen (on the application of Dean Pearce) v The Parole Board of England and Wales
...with the 2019 Guidance. The Guidance has since been amended to “reflect the judgments” in the cases of R (Morris) v Parole Board [2020] EWHC 711 (Admin) and Pearce (extant) and was re-issued in July 3 I consider that the 2019 Guidance is wrong in its advice to panels regarding the use of u......
-
The Queen (on the application of Dean Pearce) v The Parole Board of England and Wales
...of “allegations” in March 2019. It was somewhat amended in July 2021 to take account of the decision of the Divisional Court in R (Morris) v The Parole Board [2020] EWHC 711 (Admin) and of the first instance judgment of Bourne J in the present case ( [2020] EWHC 3437 (Admin)). The Guidanc......
-
Indeterminate sentence prisoners
...Accordingly, no rehearing of M.’scase was directed. R (on the application of MORRIS) v PAROLE BOARD for ENGLAND and WALES, [2020] EWHC 711 (Admin). Extended sentence valid for indeterminate recallees?In two linked but otherwise unrelated appeals, the appellants had each incurredindeterminat......