R (Allen) v Parole Board

: Mr James Goudie QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, granted permission on the papers on 12 June of this year to challenge, by way of judicial review, the decision of the defendant, that is the Parole Board for England and Wales, by a decision letter dated 23 December 2008, to refuse the claimant's application for release under section 28 of the Crime and Sentences Act 1998. In his observations when granting permission, Mr Goudie QC said:

"It is not clear that the Parole Board applied the correct standard of proof in accordance with Re D. The grounds are arguable."

Mr Southey raises in effect two challenges, both in his skeleton argument and in his submissions before me. First of all, he said that the Parole Board in their decision relied upon an allegation, that the applicant, Mr Allen, had assaulted a former partner, and he says that the first issue is whether the Parole Board applied the correct standard of proof. The second matter which arises is whether the Parole Board erred when making the finding that Mr Allen had breached the terms of his licence conditions. It is submitted on behalf of Mr Allen that the matters relied upon by the Parole Board did not demonstrate breaches of licence conditions.

I deal with the first of these challenges, and it is important to refer, right at the outset, to the decision letter of the Parole Board. In their decision letter, it appears in the documentation at page B13, the panel said as follows:

"The panel is satisfied that there is evidence of domestic violence based upon the statement of Miss Ellis [who as I understand it was Mr Allen's then partner] and her contemporaneous complaint to the police."

The Parole Board went on to say, in the next sentence:

"The panel does not accept the explanation first given in your evidence [that is Mr Allen's evidence to the panel] that this was her ploy to have you out of the property in order to improve her claim to benefit."

Read in isolation, and adopting and applying a literal approach to those words, I have to say that I do agree with Mr Southey in his submissions. As indeed I understand Mr Buley would concede, the words suggest that all that is needed to make a finding of domestic violence in these circumstances, that is in front of a Parole Board, is that, "there is evidence of domestic violence", which is the way in which the panel chose to express itself. If this is what the Parole Board actually did in reaching its conclusion, then clearly there is an error of law.

I have given considerable thought to the submission by Mr Southey as to what the panel meant in choosing those words and I have decided that I am unable to read the words in the way that he has urged me so to do. It seems to me that the panel were faced with two conflicting stories as to what happened. They had, on the one hand, an extract from the statement provided by Miss Ellis, which appears in the documentation at C59. It is important to read out, if only in brief, an extract from that because at the end of that page, it is said:

"As he [Mr Allen] came towards me, I was backing up into the spare room. Gary then started to strangle me; his hands were round my neck. He was squeezing my neck, he was literally squeezing it, and I was being pushed back into the laundry basket."

It then goes on to say:

"I had tonsillitis and my throat was seriously swollen. And then I just remember I used to do karate as a child so I put my hands in between his arms and pushed them away. I then pushed him in his chest."

Also, it is important to draw attention to the fact that there was a telephone call made by Miss Ellis to the police and I have seen a copy of the telephone conversation.

The evidence, therefore, is presented as I have described by Miss Ellis. In contrast, there is evidence presented to the Board by Mr Allen, and that is set out very clearly in the decision letter. It paints a very different picture indeed and it is suggested, by Mr Allen, that the story really is, to put it on one basis, a story which was made up, or certainly wholly exaggerated, to enable Miss Ellis to gain benefits of one kind and another. Indeed, it is suggested that C54 in the documents, which is the evidence that was given by Mr Allen to the Parole Board and its contemporaneous notes of the Parole Board hearing, when he was asked specifically questions relating to this matter it was said by Mr Allen that the police told him that a lot of young women in the...