R (K) v Parole Board
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 October 2006 |
| Date | 05 October 2006 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
Court and Reference: Administrative Court, CO/6826/2006
: McCombe J
: I Wise (instructed by the Legal Department of the Howard League for Penal Reform) for K; R Smith (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Board.
: Whether a refusal to grant parole to a young offender was procedurally fair in light of the lack of adult assistance in drafting representations, the failure to consider an oral hearing and the failure to interview him.
: In October 2005, K was given an extended sentence for various offences arising out his involvement with a gang which stole mobile phones from members of the public; he had been 13 and 14 at the time of the offending. As a result of time spent on remand, he was eligible for parole at the end of May 2006, and he made the necessary application to be considered. A letter from the Parole Board indicated that reports would be prepared, that he would have the chance to make representations on the reports, and that a member of the Board would visit him to discuss the case. The reports prepared for the Board noted that K had had little contact with his family, many of whom were involved in criminality, and had achieved significant progress in terms of education and matters such as his attitudes towards offending; but there were concerns about the risk of him returning to criminality in light of his family circumstances, though probation officers believed that this risk could be managed in the community. K, who was at that stage still 14, made representations on the reports without any assistance; there was no visit by a member of the Board. His application was refused by the Board on 5 June 2006 on the basis that release would compromise the progress he had made and represented too great a risk; it did not hold an oral hearing.
In judicial review proceedings, it was argued that (i) there was no fair hearing because K's representations were not considered, he did not have any adult assistance and he was not offered an oral hearing, (ii) it was irrational or based on a mistake of fact or impermissibly considered K's welfare.
:
1. This is an application for permission to apply for judicial review brought on behalf of a 15 year old young man, whom I shall call "K". By order dated 16 August 2006 Mr Kenneth Parker QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of this court, ordered that the application for permission should be heard as soon as possible after 18 September 2006, with the substantive hearing to follow if permission be granted. In my view, the issues raised by the intended application for judicial review are clearly properly arguable. I grant permission to apply accordingly. I have heard argument as on a substantive application.
2. K challenges a decision of the defendant Board made on 5 June 2006 that he was not suitable for early release.
3. On 25 October 2005 in the Crown Court at Manchester K was sentenced by HHJ Hammond, under s. 228 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, to an extended sentence of 4 years' detention, consisting of a custodial term of 2 years and an extended licence period of a further 2 years. The sentence was passed in respect of offences to which he had earlier pleaded guilty, namely 3 offences of robbery, 1 offence of possession of an imitation firearm at the time of commission of an offence and 1 offence of handling stolen goods. He also asked for other robberies and an offence of attempted robbery to be taken into consideration. It appears that the offences were committed by K, in company of a group of other young people; the offences consisted principally of street robberies involving the theft of mobile telephones from members of the public.
4. As is apparent, K is very young to have committed such offences (in some cases when aged only 13) and to have received a sentence of this nature. His home is in the Fallowfield area of Manchester, where he had been living with his parents and 2 older sisters. He has an older brother who, it appears, lived with his paternal grandparents. His father has a substantial criminal record and had spent up to 12 years of K's early life in custody. His older brother has also spent periods in custody. The area in which he lived is one of high prevalence of crime.
5. At the time of sentence K had already spent a substantial period in custody on remand and became eligible for consideration for parole on 30 May 2006. With commendable expedition, the defendant considered K's application, to which I shall return, by 5 June 2006. As I have said, the decision made was to refuse his release.
6. From the time of his remand into custody in June 2005, K was accommodated in a local authority secure children's home at Kingston-upon-Hull. Evidence indicates that K has had little contact with his family while in custody. The dossier before the defendant on K's parole application has been before me in its entirety. It shows that K was subject to 3 internal sentence reviews on 3 November and 2 December 2005 and on 28 February 2006. The documents show that in the period of his detention K has made very substantial educational and personal progress, both in his personal life and in his approach to his offending. In November 2005, at the early age of 14, he attained GCSE passes in Maths and English. He has also engaged upon the Duke of Edinburgh award scheme and other constructive development programmes.
7. On 17 January 2006 K made formal application to be considered for parole at the date when he became eligible for the same. His application form is before the court. The form informed K that if he made an application reports would be obtained from the establishment where he was detained, the police and the probation service or social services for forwarding to the Board. The form continued:
"You will have an opportunity to see those reports and then make written representations in support of your application about 4 months before your PED [parole eligibility date]. About 3 months before your PED, a member of the Parole Board will visit your establishment to discuss your case with you and the Parole Board will then meet to reach a decision…"
It will be seen that there is no reference there to any possibility of inviting the Board to hold an oral hearing. Nothing is said about any assistance that might be available to an applicant in making his representations. The document contains a clear representation that the applicant will be visited by a member of the Board to discuss the case.
8. Two reports were made available to the Board in this case. The first was from Mr Roy Walker, the manager of the home at which K was and is accommodated. That report is dated 8 February 2006. The second was from Mr Rifat Shaheen from the Probation Service in Manchester and is dated 3 April 2006. Mr Walker's report recognised K's excellent progress in prison, which has never been in issue. However, the report noted that K had "raised the problems of how he can return home without being drawn into that (gangland) lifestyle". Mr Walker expressed the concern that K would not be able to resist the adverse pressures. His conclusion was:
"It is my view that [K] is highly likely to return to being involved in anti-social and offending behaviour at...
To continue reading
Request your trial