R John Bell v Secretary of State for Justice
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Kerr |
| Judgment Date | 27 April 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWHC 1804 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/154/2015 |
| Date | 27 April 2016 |
[2016] EWHC 1804 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
The Courthouse
1 Oxford Row
Leeds
West Yorkshire
LS1 3BG
Mr Justice Kerr
CO/154/2015
Mr Matthew Stanbury appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Mr Matthew Slater appeared on behalf of the Defendant
This is a combined substantive judicial review and a rolled-up hearing of claims by the claimant, a life sentence prisoner whose minimum term of 20 years expired, I am told, in August 2014. These applications arise from decisions of the Category A Review Team ("CART") about the claimant, who resides at HMP Full Sutton, declining to re-categorise the claimant downwards from category A and, pertinently for the purposes of today's proceedings, declining to grant him an oral hearing before making decisions to that effect.
In 1987 the claimant raped a young woman after driving her to a local park and threatening her with a knife. Later the same year he murdered another young woman who was found lying at the bottom of a grass bank at a roadside. She had been raped before being strangled. In 1992 the claimant raped and buggered a 15-year-old girl, threatening her with a screwdriver, and attempted to murder her with a ligature around her neck after binding her hands.
The claimant accepts responsibility for the latter offence but denies, or has in the past denied, over long periods, having committed the first two offences dating back to 1987. He was sentenced in 1993 at Chester Crown Court to life imprisonment, indeed, to six life sentences for murder, attempted murder, three rapes and buggery. The minimum term was set at 20 years. He was duly incarcerated and in 1998, many years before expiry of his tariff, completed a course relating to sex offending.
In 2009 he was transferred to HMP Full Sutton. The following year, in September 2010, he took part in an extended sexual offender's treatment programme lasting some nine months. In 2013, he was assessed for but found unsuitable for what was then called the Healthy Sexual Functioning Programme; since renamed as the Healthy Sex Programme.
In April 2014, a report was prepared by a Ms Gill, a forensic psychologist, for the prison authorities. After reviewing the history, she noted that he had by this time completed the Thinking Skills Programme (TSP) and a "RESOLVE" programme which aims to reduce violence in medium to high risk adult and young male offenders.
She concluded that he had demonstrated insight into risk factors related to his offending but that she was not confident that it would be safe for him to be released, as he would then have increased opportunities to interact with adult females and his offending history had been marked by anger towards women that had triggered sexual and violent thinking. She recommended that he engaged with a what is called a psychologically informed planned environment (PIPE) unit.
The claimant's case was then considered on two occasions, in July 2014 and August 2014, by a local advisory panel (the panel). The second occasion was as a result of a complaint made by the claimant which led to the panel reconvening to consider the matter further. On both occasions the panel reached the view that there was not reliable evidence of a reduction in the risk factors associated with his violent and predatory behaviour, and that he remained a high risk of harm to the public if unlawfully at large, with no significant reduction in the risk of similar re-offending if unlawfully at large; and that consequently he should remain a category A prisoner.
That was just before the expiry of his 20 year minimum term, which expired on 14 August 2014. His categorisation was reviewed the following month in September 2014. The decision was that he was to remain in category A. His solicitors then made representations asking for an oral hearing. That led to the first of two decisions challenged or sought to be challenged in these proceedings.
First, what happened was that on 10 October 2014 a letter was sent to the claimant's solicitors giving reasons for refusing the request for an oral hearing. A pre-action protocol letter was then sent by the solicitors; and a psychologist, Dr Pratt, produced a report to which I come next. That report was dated 22 November 2014, although its final incarnation may have been a bit later than that.
In any case, it was sent to the defendant on 9 December 2014, in the form that it now is in before me today. It is common ground that the version before me today is an amended version of a previous version of the same report, which had been prepared with the assistance of public funding for the purpose of a forthcoming Parole Board hearing. It was explained to me, and it is agreed, that because public funding is not available for hearings dealing with re-categorisation of prisoners (as distinct from Parole Board hearings) the then existing report was adapted for the purpose of underpinning and supporting the claimant's case for re-categorisation.
The report is quite lengthy. Dr Pratt met the claimant for several hours before preparing it. Both sides made submissions on it, to which I will come shortly. The conclusion reached by Dr Pratt was stated in various ways in different parts of the report. I need only quote a couple of short passages. He said:
"On this basis alone [on the basis of having completed the TSP] I conclude there is therefore firm evidence that treatment in prison has substantially reduced his risk and therefore he does not merit continued classification as category A."
Later in the report he said:
"… the Parole Board can reasonably consider he meets the criteria for open conditions. I appreciate of course that will allow him access to the community and at the very least therefore he should be expected to keep a very close account of his location since he could indeed be challenged at any point."
Later in the same report, he said this:
"I do not consider that there is further work to be completed by attendance at a PIPE unit. I recommend on the basis of his current risk that he is no longer managed as a cat A prisoner and indeed I recommend the Parole Board consider him suitable for open conditions."
Pausing there, the mixing of Parole Board considerations with categorisation considerations, is readily explained by the circumstances in which the report came to be amended, which I have just recounted.
After that, on 16 December 2014 the defendant made the first of the decisions challenged in this case, considering again the request for an oral hearing and confirming its decision, already given in its letter of 10 October 2014, refusing one. The decision letter made reference to Dr Pratt's report but concluded that it was not based on fresh information unavailable at the time of the review in September 2014, and that it did not persuade the CART either to change its mind about keeping the claimant in category A or to hold an oral hearing to consider that issue further.
In April 2015, there was a hearing before the Parole Board with which I am not directly concerned. The Parole Board concluded that the claimant's risk level had not diminished to the point where he could be safely released or managed in open conditions, and recommended a further period in closed conditions. By this time, an application for permission to seek a judicial review had been made and it came before Stewart J, who granted permission on 29 April 2015.
The following month, in May 2015, Ms Hayley Tingle, a forensic psychologist at HMP Full Sutton, reviewed the papers and produced a report for the purposes of a further review of the claimant's position. She noted the history. She did not, it appears, meet the claimant before preparing her report. Nor did she mention Dr Pratt's report and I infer that she was not provided with it; otherwise, I believe she would have mentioned it. She concluded that the claimant would benefit from attending a PIPE unit but that he was not taking the opportunity to do that as he did not wish to engage with the process.
Later the same year, in September 2015, a further review of the claimant's security category took place. The resulting decision was set out in a letter of 16 September 2015, and is the subject of a further challenge before me today, in respect of which permission has not yet been granted. The decision letter referred to the history and noted that the claimant was now, unlike previously, willing to take part in what had become the Healthy Sex Programme (HSP), but the remainder of the decision letter was essentially repetitious of the decision about nine months earlier. It included a repeat of the refusal to hold an oral hearing, essentially for the same reasons as before; although by this time judicial review grounds of challenge had been lodged in respect of that previous decision and permission had been granted by Stewart J.
For completeness I mention (though it is not directly material) that in January 2016 the claimant completed the HSP.
The second challenge came before the court by way of amendments to the initial grounds of challenge, and that matter was considered by Mr CMG Ockelton (Vice-President of the Upper Tribunal), sitting as a judge of the High Court, on the papers. He directed on 22 April (five days ago) a rolled-up hearing in respect of that further proposed challenge, to be heard at the same time as the substantive hearing in relation to the first challenge. That is why the matter comes before me today in the way that it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patrick Hassett and Another v The Secretary of State for Justice
...instance, alongside the decision below in this case: R (Morgan) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] EWHC 106 (Admin); R (Bell) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] EWHC 1804 (Admin); M v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] EWHC 2455 (Admin); and R (Cummings) v Secretary of State fo......
-
The Queen (on the Application of Simon Goldsmith) v Secretary of State for Justice
...referred. These include Hopkins (2019) EWHC 2151 (Admin), Steele (2018) EWHC 1072 (Admin), “ M” (2016) EWHC 2455 (Admin), Bell (2016) EWHC 1804 (Admin), Lynch (2008) EWHC 2697 (Admin) and Willoughby (2011) EWHC 3483 155 Suffice it to say that I adopt the observations of HHJ Gosnell at p......