R (on the application of Keith Rose) v The Secretary of State for Justice
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Karen Steyn |
| Judgment Date | 19 July 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] EWHC 1826 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/4600/2016 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 19 July 2017 |
[2017] EWHC 1826 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Karen Steyn QC
(sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)
Case No: CO/4600/2016
Jude Bunting (instructed by Bhatia Best) for the Claimant
Ivan Hare QC (instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the Defendant
Hearing date: 28 June 2017
Judgment Approved
See Order at foot of this judgment.
Karen Steyn QC:
Introduction
The Claimant, Mr Rose, is a serving prisoner. He is detained in Category A conditions, as he has been throughout his 27 years in prison. Category A is the highest security category in the prison estate. Mr Rose's escape risk classification has varied over the last 27 years, but it was downgraded to "standard" in July 2006 and has remained static since then.
On 14 June 2016, the Deputy Director of Custody High Security ("the Director") reviewed Mr Rose's security category and decided (a) there were no grounds for holding an oral hearing into the review of his security categorisation; and (b) Mr Rose should remain in Category A ("the Decision"). Mr Rose challenges the Director's decision not to hold an oral hearing. He was granted permission on the papers by Charles Bourne QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge.
The Facts
The Claimant's offences
In 1990, Mr Rose was convicted of two counts of kidnapping, one count of having a firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence and one count of blackmail. On 14 September 1990, he was sentenced to 15 years', 5 years' and 12 years' imprisonment for those offences, respectively, set to run concurrently.
The trial judge's sentencing remarks reveal that Mr Rose, who had no previous convictions, had built up high levels of personal and business debt. He decided to kidnap a businessman in order to extract ransom money. The offence was planned over a lengthy period. Mr Rose forced entry into the home of a deputy chairman of a food wholesales company ("the victim") and his wife, wearing combat clothing and a balaclava, and armed with a sawn-off shotgun. Mr Rose handcuffed the victim's wife to furniture in their house. He led the victim to a secluded gully on Dartmoor where he placed a thin wire noose around the victim's neck and secured it to a tree branch. The victim was blindfolded, gagged and handcuffed. The victim was held for four days before managing to release himself. Mr Rose had left a ransom note for the victim's wife demanding £1 million for the victim's release and warning that he would execute the victim if she did not pay or contacted the police. A reduced ransom of £147,000 was paid. Mr Rose was found in possession of most of the money on his arrest.
Following Mr Rose's arrest for the above offences, investigations were re-opened into an unsolved murder of the wife of a wealthy supermarket owner. In 1991, Mr Rose was convicted of her murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a tariff of 25 years. The murder had been committed a decade earlier, in 1981. This offence, too, had involved a planned kidnap with a view to extracting ransom money. When the victim resisted, Mr Rose shot her four times in the back as she fled, and then he fired two further shots, point-blank, at her head and heart.
In 1995, Mr Rose carried out a highly-planned escape from HMP Parkhurst and was at large for several days. For this offence he was sentenced to a further three years' imprisonment.
Mr Rose denies that he committed murder, but he admits he committed the other offences of which he has been convicted. He has served his determinate sentences and the tariff period for the offence of murder. Mr Rose is now 68 years of age.
The Local Advisory Panel's Recommendation
The Local Advisory Panel (LAP) made a recommendation to the Director, on 10 May 2016, that Mr Rose should be downgraded from Security Category A to Category B. The members of the LAP were (i) a Deputy Governor; (ii) the Head of Corruption Prevention; (iii) a psychologist and a trainee psychologist; (iv) two offender supervisors from the Offender Management Unit ("OMU"); (v) a Category A administrator from the OMU; (vi) a case manager from the Integrated Substance Misuse Team; (vii) a member of the Independent Monitoring Board; and (viii) three Residential Officers.
The LAP's report stated:
"The Local Advisory Panel (LAP) considered that Mr Rose does not still pose a risk of reoffending in a similar way if unlawfully at large and did evidence the significant reduction in risk that would warrant a recommendation for downgrade."
"Recommendation – Downgrade to Category B"
…
"The LAP was advised that in relation to the kidnapping offence he has shifted in accepting his responsibility, although Mr Rose still denies the murder. During the last year Mr Rose has engaged in the RESOLVE programme to further address his risk related to violence. He demonstrated good progress in developing insight into the kidnapping offence. Although Mr Rose did not directly explore and address the murder offence during the course, many of the risks associated with the kidnapping offence are also associated with the murder offence. Therefore, Mr Rose has developed some insight into the murder offence indirectly. He has also engaged in an HCR-20 post course risk assessment, which indicated he presents a moderate risk in the community, low in custody."
"The LAP noted that custodial reports are positive describing him as being a polite and compliant prisoner who interacts well with staff and prisoners alike. Although Mr Rose remains to have a negative attitude towards Psychology he has engaged with them and has increased his engagement with sentence planning. Mr Rose has had no proven adjudications since 2005, his last negative entry was in 2013 and no concerns have been raised from Security. Mr Rose has also produced work for the chaplaincy which has encouraged positive feedback."
"The LAP acknowledges that Mr Rose has made progress in all areas. His attitude and response to treatment has shifted. He has increased engagement in the sentence planning process, and daily prison life in a pro-social way which is indicative in applying new skills. His protective factors are his supportive family and his strong identity as a grandfather. He has positively engaged in some work with the Chaplaincy and he is about to become a peer support worker for RESOLVE. He has developed appropriate post treatment plans that would support ongoing risk reduction."
"The LAP is encouraged that parallels between the kidnap and the index offence highlighted in the RESOLVE have developed some insight. The LAP is also further encouraged with Mr Rose pro-social attitude and mature consistent behaviour."
"The LAP considers this demonstrates progress and recommends downgrading to category B." (Bold emphasis in the original; underlining added.)
Psychology Reports
The evidence before the Director (and the LAP) included:
i) A programme treatment report dated 10 September 2015, following Mr Rose's completion of the RESOLVE programme on 20 August 2015.
ii) A psychological risk assessment completed in January 2016, at the request of the Parole Board, by Ms Jamie Colaço, a forensic psychologist employed by HMP Whitemoor. This assessment is referred to in various documents as the "HCR-20" report, as a result of Ms Colaço's use of HCR-20, a guide to violent risk assessment. (HCR denotes historical, clinical and risk management factors.)
iii) A psychological report by Mr John Cordwell, forensic psychologist, dated 1 March 2016. Mr Cordwell was instructed by Mr Rose's solicitors. Like Ms Colaço, Mr Cordwell produced his report for the Parole Board, rather than for the Director directly.
RESOLVE is an accredited programme which is described on the Ministry of Justice website as a
"moderate intensity cognitive-behavioural intervention that aims to reduce violence in medium risk adult male offenders. The programme includes group and individual sessions and is suitable for offenders with a history of reactive or instrumental violence."
The RESOLVE report noted that Mr Rose " engaged well" and " developed his openness throughout the programme". Mr Rose " reflected on the risk factors that made his use of aggression and violence more likely" at the time of the kidnapping offence and he " appeared to develop in taking responsibility for this offence". Mr Rose was " open to being challenged" and he " demonstrated respectful participation to both facilitators and other group members". It was noted that he " would consider the feedback and was actively seen to try to implement this in his skills practices. He also provided developmental feedback to others in a respectful and supportive way". Mr Rose " demonstrated that he has developed in his insight and awareness of his old me lifestyle and how this led him to use violence and aggression".
Under the heading " Summary of Change", the RESOLVE report addressed seven " Treatment Need Domains" in detail. The comments included the following:
"Insight and Awareness"
…
"Throughout the programme, Mr Rose demonstrated development in his insight and awareness, both in his risk factors at the time of the kidnap offence and what may be risk factors for him in the future. … He discussed how he had previously stated that the victim was involved in the offence and was aware of this for an insurance fraud. It is positive that he has now begun to take responsibility for his offence, stating that within ten minutes of the offence he realised that this was not the case and the victim was not aware of what was occurring."
…
"Overall, Mr Rose has demonstrated development in his insight and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (on the application of Mark Harrison) v Secretary of State for Justice
...follow the Defendant's published policy in PSI 08/2013 as to when to hold oral hearings: R (Rose) v Secretary of State for Justice [2017] EWHC 1826 (Admin), para 42. PSI 08/2013 paras 4.6 and 4.7 32 Para 4.6 of PSI 08/2013 provides that the Director may grant an oral hearing of a Category ......
-
R Peter John Unwin v Secretary of State for Justice
...be no purpose in quashing Decision 1 even if it contained significant errors. 64 Unlike R (Rose) v. Secretary of State for Justice [2017] EWHC 1826 (Admin), this is not a case where the recommendation of the LAP to downgrade was not accepted by the CAT and where the case for an oral hearin......
-
R (on the application of Edwin Hopkins) v Secretary of State for Justice
... ... 19 I was also referred by both parties to two first instance decisions: R (Rose) v Secretary of State for Justice [2017] EWHC 1826 and R (Steele) v Secretary of State for Justice [2018] EWHC 1072 ... Whilst it was ... ...
-
The Queen (on the Application of Simon Goldsmith) v Secretary of State for Justice
...require an oral hearing” 40 In paragraph 25 of the skeleton argument Mr Rule refers me to R (Rose) v Secretary of State for Justice (2017) EWHC 1826 (Admin). This was a case decided since Hassett and having considered that 41 In that case the LAP recommended that the claimant be downgraded......