R Edmund Bruton v Parole Board of England and Wales
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Foster DBE |
| Judgment Date | 01 July 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EWHC 1692 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/2502/2021 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
and
[2022] EWHC 1692 (Admin)
Mrs Justice Foster DBE
Case No: CO/2502/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Bristol Civil Justice Centre
2 Redcliff Street, Bristol, BS1 6GR
Stuart Withers (instructed by Kesar and Co Solicitors) for the Claimant
[The Defendant and Interested Party neither appeared nor were represented.]
Hearing date: 21 January 2022
Approved Judgment
INTRODUCTION
The Claimant, Edmund Bruton, is a Category C prisoner currently detained in HMP Dartmoor, and this is his challenge to a decision of the Parole Board communicated by letter dated 19 April 2021 in which the three-person Board decided he should not be released nor transferred to conditions of lesser security.
The Claimant, who was 51 at the time of the decision, is serving an indeterminate sentence for public protection (an “IPP sentence”) under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, with a minimum term of 7 years 6 months (less 277 days spent on remand) imposed on 25 October 2011 following conviction for intentionally damaging property with intention to endanger life. He also received a determinate sentence of 6 months in respect of dangerous driving and was disqualified for life, that latter element was subsequently varied by the CACD to 5 years but his appeals against conviction and sentence were otherwise dismissed. Mr Bruton's tariff accordingly expired in 2018; this was his second review.
On 9 March 2021 a three-member panel of the Parole Board convened to review Mr Bruton's detention. This hearing was adjourned due to a lack of time; the case was finally concluded on 9 April 2021. The issue before the Parole Board was whether it was satisfied that it was no longer necessary for the protection of the public that Mr Bruton was confined. If not so satisfied the Parole Board has no power to direct his release.
Permission was granted by Ms Margaret Obi sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court. As is usual, the Defendant, as a judicial body, remains neutral in these proceedings but in order to assist the Court has filed a set of reports from the Claimant's extensive dossier to add to those previously filed as necessary for determination of the claim. The Court has also received a transcript of the hearing before the Parole Board.
THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK
The sentence passed on the Claimant was one of Imprisonment for Public Protection created by s.225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”) (in fact abolished by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 with prospective effect from December 2012). The effect of the sentence is that it is an indeterminate life sentence for the purposes of s.34(2)(d) of the 1997 Act. The Claimant has served his minimum term and his release on parole can be considered. The Claimant's release was governed by the provisions of s.82A of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. Once the minimum term has expired, the early release provisions set out in s.28(5)-(8) of the 1997 Act apply and responsibility for considering release passes to the Parole Board.
The Parole Board is a statutory body constituted by s.239 of the 2003 Act. By s.28(6)(a) of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (“the 1997 Act”), it is required to direct the release of a life sentence prisoner where, a case having been referred to it by the Secretary of State, it is “ satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the Public that the prisoner should be confined”.
In 2019 the Defendant introduced new Parole Board Rules which contained the Reconsideration Process.
Rule 28 of the Parole Board Rules sets out the process. Pursuant to rule 28(3) a party requesting the reconsideration must within 21 days of the written direction submit an application and serve it on the Board. That did not happen in time in this case – due to a mistake about the address which, unfortunately was not notified to the Claimant.
THE ISSUE
The Claimant puts his case on the basis that the decision was unfairly reached because of errors made by the Parole Board. Although expressed in somewhat different language the challenge essentially amounts to the following:
a. failing to take into account evidence that supported the Claimant's case and demonstrated that he met the test for release
b. failing properly to consider the Claimant's closing submissions
c. making material mistakes of fact when summarising the witnesses' evidence.
The evidence for this is argued to be the inaccuracies and omissions in the decision letter of the Board. It is said that this has a resonance beyond merely saying the Board should have reached a different decision because this decision will form part of the Claimant's dossier and ought not to stand in its present form because it could prejudice future consideration of his case. It is said there is no fair or accurate summary of the evidence given at the hearing and accordingly, and in any event, the decision should go back for correction to the Parole Board. The arguments overlap, and I deal with the Claimant's case compendiously.
BACKGROUND
On 9 March 2021, the Claimant's case was heard by a three member panel of the Parole Board including a specialist psychologist member. The Panel had before it a number of reports from professionals and heard evidence from the following:
(a) the Claimant,
(b) Ms Kennedy, an independent psychologist instructed by him
(c) Ms Jones, a prison psychologist
(d) Ms Stockley, the Claimant's Prison Offender Manager at HMP Channings Wood
(e) Father Anthony, Prison Chaplin
(f) Ms Venter, the Claimant's Community Offender Manager
It is in respect of the recording and the consideration of the evidence of Ms Stockley and to an extent that of Ms Jones that issue is particularly taken.
The context in which the Parole Board were obliged to consider the risks of release of course included the details of the index offence.
No issue is taken with the Parole Board's description of the facts of the offending and I take them directly from their Decision:
“ 3 Analysis of offending.
“Now aged 51, you are serving a sentence having been convicted after trial of damaging property with intent to endanger life and dangerous driving. You were acquitted of attempted murder. You drove your vehicle at speed through the living room wall of your former girlfriend's house when she and her children were in the property. Prior to the offence you had consumed a supposedly lethal quantity of anti-freeze. You also sent text messages to your former partner, saying that she could have avoided you committing suicide if she had answered your messages. You said that you would be “waiting for her in hell”. You were found in the car in the partly demolished property shortly after the collision. You had puncture wounds to either side of your neck, which you said you had caused by you placing a garden fork on the steering wheel so that it would injure you on impact. You said that you had pulled the fork out of your neck. However, the fork was not retrieved by the police. At the time of sentence, you said that you were so intent on killing yourself because of the pressures in your life, that you failed to consider the consequences of your behaviour on others. The sentencing judge commented that your behaviour was pre-meditated and that you not only planned your own death but also serious injury to your previous partner and her children. At the time of sentence, you said that you wanted your ex-partner to see you die as she was the only person in your life, and you had no life. Your application to appeal your conviction was refused in 2017.
“ You had been observed driving dangerously in the surrounding residential area. It is said that you reached speeds of 80mph, that a postman had to jump out of the way for his own safety, and that you placed other pedestrians at risk. Your previous partner, her three children, and one of their friends, were present in the home when you drove into it at speed. Your ex-partner and three children were in the living room at the time of the impact and two of the children suffered injuries as a result. One sustained a scar to the head and another required stitches to the shoulder. However, all involved were severely traumatised and the children displayed symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
“ You met your ex-partner on an on-line dating site less than a year before your index offence. You had spent time at her home, and you had been introduced to her children.
“ She ended the relationship but maintained some contact with you because she was concerned about your emotional well-being. You failed to accept that the relationship was over or to accept that it was your behaviour that had contributed to the relationship ending.
“ Your index offence represented an extreme act of domestic violence. You have one previous conviction. According to the PNC record, in 1986 at the age of 17, you were convicted of indecent assault on a female aged 16 or over, for which you received a probation order for three years. The pre-sentence report states that the girl was under 16 at the time of the offence and that you were babysitting for her and her sister at the request of their mother. Police were alerted when you were naked in front of a 7 year old child, and it later emerged that you had sexually touched the child/or her sister sometime previously. You told the Panel that you still intended to challenge this conviction and it has played on your mind. You said that you were advised to plead guilty.
“You continue to say that your index offence was the result of your emotional crisis at that time due to your financial...
To continue reading
Request your trial