R Joseph Samuel v Parole Board for England and Wales
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Clive Sheldon |
| Judgment Date | 16 January 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] EWHC 42 (Admin) |
| Date | 16 January 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/2331/2019 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
[2020] EWHC 42 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Birmingham Civil Justice Centre
33 Bull St, Birmingham, B4 6DS
Clive Sheldon QC
SITTING AS A DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Case No: CO/2331/2019
Sian Beaven (instructed by Kesar & Co) for the Claimant
Myles Grandison (instructed by Government Legal Department) for the Defendant
The Interested Party did not attend and was not represented
Hearing date: December 19th 2019
Approved Judgment
Clive Sheldon QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court:
This is an application for judicial review brought by Mr. Joseph Samuel against the decision of the Parole Board of England and Wales, dated March 9 th 2019, not to order his release or otherwise recommend his transfer to open conditions. Permission to proceed with this application for judicial review was made by Sir Wyn Williams, sitting as a judge of the High Court, on August 6 th 2019.
As is customary, the Parole Board has maintained a neutral stance in these proceedings. It has provided submissions, both in writing and orally before me by Mr. Myles Grandison, for the purpose of assisting the Court. The Interested Party, the Secretary of State, has taken no part in these proceedings. He also took no part in the proceedings before the Parole Board.
Factual Background
Mr. Samuel was convicted in 2006, following guilty pleas, of (i) wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm; (ii) two counts of robbery; (iii) aggravated burglary; and (iv) two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Mr. Samuel was seventeen years old at the time of the offences and when he pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to detention for public protection (in accordance with section 226(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003), with a five-year tariff. The tariff expired on June 20 th 2011, and so by the time of the Parole Board hearing on February 25 th 2019, Mr. Samuel was very substantially beyond tariff.
In its decision, the Parole Board described Mr. Samuel as having a troubled childhood, that he was first convicted at the age of 12 and had a number of convictions before the index offences. These involved “acquisitive offending (theft and burglary) but also violence in a variety of forms”. The Parole Board explained that Mr. Samuel “regularly carried a knife”, and abused drugs and alcohol from a young age. He initially received non-custodial sentences, but did not comply with them and continued to offend. At the age of 16, Mr. Samuel received a 42 months custodial sentence for a series of robberies. He committed the index offences within days of release from that sentence. The index offences were committed over a ten day period.
The Parole Board also noted that subsequent to his conviction for the index offences, Mr. Samuel received a 30 month concurrent sentence for a further robbery and a number of burglaries committed prior to the index offences. The Parole Board referred to an assault by Mr. Samuel on a teacher in prison whilst awaiting sentence, and a conviction for assaulting a prison officer during the course of his sentence.
The Parole Board stated that although Mr. Samuel “pleaded guilty to the index and other offences, you have increasingly during your sentence minimised your role and actually denied that you were guilty: claiming on occasions that you were merely present but not involved and took the blame for your brother.”
The panel of the Parole Board that heard Mr. Samuel's case included a psychologist, and was chaired by a judge. The panel was presented with a 684 page dossier, which included a variety of reports and other materials relating to Mr. Samuel. At the oral hearing, the Parole Board heard from Mr. Samuel, his current Offender Supervisor (Richard Burke), his previous Offender Supervisor (Adrian Hayter), and the Offender Manager (Alex Smith).
The Parole Board's decision letter ran to four pages. In section 1, the Parole Board stated that:
“The Panel can direct your release only if it is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that you be detained. In considering whether to recommend a transfer to open conditions, the Panel must perform a balancing exercise: contrasting the benefits to you of a period in less secure conditions against the risk to the public of you being in the community, unsupervised, on periods of temporary licence.”
The Parole Board identified the “Risk Factors” at section 4. These were stated to include:
“a chaotic childhood; a criminal lifestyle and associates; drug and alcohol abuse; the use of instrumental violence; poor victim empathy; poor thinking skills; poor compliance with court orders and supervision; difficulty in accepting your role in the offending; poor emotional management; minimisation; and untreated personality disorders.”
At section 5 of its decision, the Parole Board set out the “Evidence of change since last review and progress in custody.” This was the most detailed part of the Parole Board's decision. It included the following:
“Yours has not been a straightforward progress through the prison system. Because of your alleged poor behaviour (much of which you deny) you have been moved prison on 47 occasions. In the early years of your sentence there were numerous adjudications, including for threatening behaviour to prison officers. In that context, it is worthy of note that you are a large, well-built man whose mere presence can at times appear intimidating and aggressive even if that is not your intention… .
There are a number of positives from your time in custody. In the early years you undertook a number of accredited programmes to try to reduce your risks of offending: you have completed both the Thinking Skills Programme and the Enhanced Thinking Skills Programme. You have also done work around your drug and alcohol abuse …
You have also engaged in education. You were illiterate on arrival in prison but are now undertaking a degree course in psychology and criminology. You have also trained as a counsellor.
However, you have not completed any offending behaviour work around your violence.
During your sentence you have been the subject of numerous psychiatric and psychological reports. Prior to sentence two psychiatrists agreed that you suffered from a psychopathic disorder …
More recently, experts have described your difficulties in terms of personality disorder: anti-social, dissocial and narcissistic traits have been identified and there was considerable evidence of the latter in what you said to the Panel.
Your last Parole Review was long delayed [it occurred in 2016]. A number of reports were produced, including a long report by Psychologist Dr Cordwell, instructed on your behalf. He was of the view that you were suitable for and would benefit from attending the Self-Change Programme. However, by then you were asserting forcefully that you would not engage in any further offence-related group-work interventions. One reason given was that, now you were a Muslim, you were not able to talk about your offending other than to professionals. You have not completed SCP, which no longer exists, but you have adopted the same attitude to engaging with Kaizen. Dr Coldwell had identified psychopathic traits of you being conning and manipulative and having the ability to deceive, mislead and subvert others, especially professionals. He found you lacked genuine remorse, lacked empathy, presented yourself in a positive light and were reckless and impulsive in your behaviour. He advocated further work to try to persuade you to engage in a motivational PIPE or a Personality Disorder Unit.
Psychiatrist, Dr Puri, in a report for the last Review, accepted that whilst ever you were refusing to engage in a Therapeutic Community, there was little point in recommending it. However, he had no doubt that you needed medium to long term treatment by way of psychological intervention, without which you would fail in the community.
Since then, you have continued to refuse to engage with any further such intervention. You have declined to engage with a further psychological assessment by a prison psychologist. You were said to be willing to engage with an independent psychologist but the person instructed was not in fact able to keep the appointment …
The number of adjudications has reduced considerably in recent years and the last one was now some time ago. However, there are still references to you being threatening/aggressive to staff. The Panel's own assessment is that there is a realisation that it is part of your personality and there is little point in bringing repeated adjudications. The situation could be very different if you were in open conditions and repeated threats would likely result in a quick return to closed conditions.”
The Parole Board set out at section 6 of its decision the ‘Panel's assessment of current risk’ as follows:
“Nothing has changed since your last review to reduce your risks from a high risk of causing serious harm to the public and a high risk of violent reoffending.”
At section 7, the Parole Board set out its “Evaluation of effectiveness of plans to manage risk”, as follows:
“Given you display little insight into your risk factors there can be no confidence that you would comply with conditions designed to cater for risk which you do not accept still exist. Whilst your mother, with whom you are now in touch, may be a supportive factor, her age and poor health will limit her ability to be a protective factor. You do not appear to have any other support in the community. You are institutionalised and totally underestimate the challenges you will face when you do return to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R Debono v Parole Board of England and Wales
...upon recent refusals in other cases by the court to do so, see for example Samuel v Parole Board of England and Wales and Anor [2020] EWHC 42 (Admin) at paragraphs 32 and 33. Decision 30 There is no doubt that the Parole Board understood the matters it was required to take into account by ......
-
The Cost of Open Conditions: R (Samuel) v Parole Board [2020] EWHC 42 (Admin)
...The Author(s) 2020Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/0022018320920993 R (Samuel) v Parole Board [2020] EWHC 42 (Admin)
- Indeterminate sentence prisoners
...to be undertaken afresh by a differentlyconstituted Panel.R (on the application of SAMUEL) v PAROLE BOARD for ENGALND and WALES,[2020] EWHC 42 (Admin).In court... - Indeterminate sentence prisoners