R Parratt v Secretary of State for Justice and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Males |
| Judgment Date | 16 January 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 17 (Admin) |
| Date | 16 January 2013 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/8400/2010 |
[2013] EWHC 17 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Hon. Mr Justice Males
Case No: CO/8400/2010
Philip Rule (instructed by Mark Williams Associates Solicitors) for the Claimant
Stephen Whale (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State
Ben Hooper (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Parole Board
Hearing Date: 18 th December 2012
Introduction
The claimant, Daniel Parratt, now aged 28, was convicted on 14 September 2007 of causing grievous bodily harm with intent. He pleaded guilty to other offences of violence arising out of the same incident, an unprovoked attack in April 2006 when he was 21 by the claimant and his brother on a group of young people in the street. It occurred after the claimant had been drinking heavily and had been ejected from a public house. He had also used cocaine. The claimant knocked one member of the group to the ground and kicked him in the head. Another, who had already been attacked by the claimant, was hit by the claimant's brother with such force that he was knocked out and fell backwards, cracking his head. This victim's injuries were life threatening and required three operations including the removal of part of his skull and its replacement by a titanium plate. That young man's life will be permanently affected by this mindless violence. The claimant had previous convictions for violence which in one case had also involved an unprovoked attack in the street. The sentencing judge observed that despite the claimant's profession of remorse, he could see no sign of genuine remorse or empathy for the victim. Nor could the author of the pre-sentence report. The claimant was assessed by the sentencing judge as dangerous within the meaning of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. He was sentenced to imprisonment for public protection with a minimum term of 3 1/2 years, less the 417 days that he had already spent on remand. That minimum term expired on 24 January 2010.
The claimant did not enjoy life in prison, although it appears to have done him a lot of good. He has already brought one claim for judicial review, contending that he was entitled to a pre-tariff review, that is to say an assessment by the Parole Board before the expiry of his minimum term of his suitability for a transfer to open conditions. That claim was rejected by Blair J (see [2009] EWHC 3089 (Admin), [2010] 1 WLR 1848). Nevertheless, the claimant did make very good progress in prison. At his first review, held in May 2010, the Parole Board recommended a transfer to open conditions. At his next review, held in August 2011, the Parole Board directed his release and he was released in September 2011.
In these proceedings the claimant contends that his rights under Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights have been infringed in two respects and that he is entitled as a result to declarations and damages. Article 5(4) provides:
"(4) Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful."
The claimant's first ground of claim is that there was an unlawful delay in holding the first review by the Parole Board, referred to as the "post tariff review", from January 2010 when it ought to have been held, at or about the date of the expiry of the minimum term, until May 2010, a delay of four months. He brings that claim against both the Secretary of State for Justice and the Parole Board. The Parole Board concedes liability. The Secretary of State acknowledges the liability of the Parole Board but contends that there is no liability on his part as a result of the conduct of those for whom he is responsible. The claimant does not contend that a review in January 2010 would have resulted in his release. Indeed he accepted at the May 2010 review that release at that stage was not yet appropriate. What he does say is that the delay in holding this first review hearing caused a delay in his transfer to open conditions, which in turn meant that his release occurred later than would have been the case if the first review had taken place in January 2010. In addition to declarations the claimant claims damages for frustration and anxiety caused by the delay and for what was described in argument as the "knock-on" effect of this delay on his eventual release.
The second claim is brought against the Secretary of State only and is that the review period of 15 months set by the Secretary of State between the first and second reviews was excessive. After the first review, the Secretary of State determined that the next review would be held in August 2011, which was 15 months after the first review. The claimant contends that this was unlawful and that any period in excess of 12 months could not be justified. He claims damages for this delay of three months, contending once again that it caused him frustration and anxiety and, because (he says) a review held in May 2011 would have recommended his immediate release, that it unlawfully prolonged his time in prison.
Permission to bring these claims was granted by Collins J. Permission to bring a further claim based on the Secretary of State's refusal to permit a transfer to open conditions prior to the first review by the Parole Board was refused.
The facts
By September 2009 the claimant had completed various courses to promote his rehabilitation in accordance with, and in some respects going beyond, the objectives set for him in his sentence plan. He was assessed by his Offender Supervisor using the OASys system at that stage as having a medium risk of re-conviction and as posing a high risk of harm to children (apparently reflecting the fact that the group attacked by the claimant were young teenagers) and a medium risk of harm to known adults. It was noted that risks associated with his education, training and employment and also with alcohol misuse might require further assessments. Overall, the report by his Offender Supervisor was positive, stating that he had used his time in custody wisely and recommending what was described as a progressive move to an open prison. His Offender Manager considered that the claimant continued to pose a high risk of serious harm, at any rate until this was tested within the community, but strongly supported a move to open conditions, noting "tangible evidence of a change in thinking and behaviour" through participation in the accredited programmes, which change needed to be tested and consolidated.
At that stage it was expected that the post tariff review hearing would take place in January 2010 at about the time of the tariff expiry but this hearing was deferred by one month until February 2010. One reason for this deferral may have been a delay, apparently due to staff sickness, of some 17 days in the preparation of the claimant's dossier for the hearing, although it may be that it would not have been possible to hold the hearing in January in any event. As it was, the hearing was further deferred and did not take place until 20 May 2010. This delay of four months is the subject of the claimant's first claim.
After permission had been given by Collins J on 30 June 2011 to bring this claim, the Parole Board conceded liability for the whole period of delay from January to May in the following terms on 12 August 2011:
"Due to a lack of member resources, the Claimant's Parole Board hearing could not be listed until 20 May 2010. In these circumstances, the Parole Board accepts that the delay experienced by the Claimant between the date of his tariff expiry, on 21 January 2010, and this listed hearing on 20 May 2010 gave rise to a breach of the Claimant's rights under Art, 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
For the avoidance of doubt the Parole Board does not accept that the Claimant is entitled to damages as a result of this breach: declaratory relief is sufficient to ensure 'just satisfaction'."
I see no reason to doubt that this lack of resources was the effective cause of the delay after February and, in all probability, that it was at least a contributing factor in the deferral from January to February.
At the oral hearing before a panel of the Parole Board on 20 May 2010 the claimant pressed initially, perhaps somewhat unrealistically, for his immediate release. In the course of the hearing, however, he withdrew this application and sought instead a recommendation that he be transferred to open conditions.
The panel gave its decision on 25 May 2010. It noted that it was faced with conflicting OASys assessments, but concluded that there was a medium risk of reconviction and of harm to a known adult. It was impressed by the claimant's good behaviour in prison, his application to his sentence plan and the thought which he had given to resettlement on release, which included cutting off his links with his former drinking and drug using companions, although it considered that some aspects of the claimant's learning from the courses he had undertaken appeared to be superficial. Overall the panel recommended the claimant's move to open conditions.
The Secretary of State accepted that recommendation on 4 June 2010 and at the same time determined that the claimant's next hearing before the Parole...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R Faisal Kaiyam v Secretary of State for Justice
...to the application of that provision in the context of Parole Board reviews is to be found in the judgment of Males J in R (Parratt) v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] EWHC 17 (Admin), [2013] ACD 59, at para 32: "(a) Article 5(4) of the ECHR creates a right to a speedy review of the l......
-
R Parratt v Secretary of State for Justice and Another
...IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION (ADMINISTRATIVE COURT) Mr Justice Males [2013] EWHC 17 (Admin) Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Lady Justice Arden Lord Justice McCombe and Lord Justice Burnett Case No: C1/2013/0879......
-
The Preesall Underground Gas Storage Facility Order 2015
...of State. The Secretary of State refused the application on 9th April 2013, but, pursuant to a judgment of the High Court of Justice ([2013] EWHC 17 (Admin)) dated 17th January 2014, the Secretary of State was required to re-decide the application. The Secretary of State then invited furthe......