R Peter Chester v The Parole Board
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Judge Behrens |
| Judgment Date | 31 March 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] EWHC 800 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/8811/2010,Case No: CO/8811/2010 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 31 March 2011 |
[2011] EWHC 800 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
The Court House
Oxford Row
Leeds LS1 3BG
Before: His Honour Judge Behrens sitting as a Judge of the High Court in Leeds
Case No: CO/8811/2010
Ms Flo Krause (instructed by Chivers of 2 Wellington Street, Bingley BD16 2NB) for the Claimant
Richard Thyne (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor of One Kemble Street, London WC2B 4TS) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 22 nd March 2011
BEFORE HIS HONOUR JUDGE BEHRENS SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Judge Behrens :
Introduction
Mr Chester was born on 4 October 1954 and is thus 56 years old. On 1 March 1978 he was convicted of the murder of his 7 year old niece, Donna Marie Gillbanks. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. The tariff set by the trial judge was 12 years. The tariff was subsequently reviewed by the Secretary of State, and set at 20 years. It expired on 29 October 1997. Mr Chester has now spent over 33 years in prison.
Mr Chester's case has been reviewed by the Parole Board on six previous occasions – in June 1995, January 1998, July 2000, December 2004, December 2006 and September 2008.
The seventh review of Mr Chester's case took place in May 2010. It was a paper review. The Parole Board considered that Mr Chester was unsuitable for release or for a recommendation that he should be transferred to open conditions. Mr Chester was dissatisfied with the decision and applied for an oral hearing to look properly and carefully at the risk.
By a decision dated 1 st June 2010 the oral hearing was refused. The reasons for that decision are contained in the fourth paragraph of the decision letter:
Mr Chester's application for an oral hearing centres on his assertion that his case and assessments of risk require an oral hearing to be fully explored. He states that he challenges the dossier, although he is not specific about what he challenges and does not state what legal argument might be put to a hearing. He does not state what it is about his case that cannot be considered on the papers alone and there is no evidence that his areas of risk have been addressed, as indicated in the paper decision. The member considered that there was insufficient justification for an oral hearing and therefore the application was refused.
In this application Mr Chester seeks judicial review of the decision of 1 st June 2010 by which he was refused the oral hearing. It will be necessary to consider his grounds in detail later in this judgment. In summary he submits that in the circumstances of this case it was unfair to deny him a hearing. The Parole Board seeks to resist the challenge. In summary it contends that there was no realistic prospect of release or a move to open conditions and the decision to refuse an oral hearing was fair.
On 29 th September 2010 Judge Langan QC granted permission. In doing so he made the following comment:
The Claimant should not be unduly optimistic. The defence argument based on the availability to the Board of the Claimant's detailed and highly articulate written submissions is a strong one: and he could, if he wished have supplemented these by further written submissions after he received the dossier. Against this, the overall length of the time served by the Claimant, the amount by which the tariff has been exceeded, and the fact that something of an impasse has been reached in the management of his sentence, support the view that procedural fairness required he be granted an oral hearing. His case is not one marked out for obvious success, but is fairly arguable.
History up to the seventh review
The index offence
It is accepted by Ms Krause that the circumstances of the offence were horrific. Mr Chester murdered his 7 year old niece. On the night of the offence Mr Chester went to his sister's house whilst drunk and while looking for the bathroom he entered his niece's bedroom, raped and strangled her. Her mother found the body of her daughter in the morning.
The first review – June 1995
As already noted Mr Chester's 20 year tariff expired in October 1997. At his first parole board review Mr Chester had accepted his guilt and sought transfer to an open prison. It was recommended that he be transferred to a Category C prison but the Parole Board recommended he remain in category B conditions.
The second review – January 1998
Mr Chester had not co-operated with the process of preparing reports in readiness for the review. He showed no victim sympathy or remorse. He had completed anger management and alcohol awareness courses, but had declined to participate in the Sex Offenders Treatment Programme (SOTP). The probation officer felt that until he had completed such a course no complete assessment of risk could be made. Mr Chester was considered to represent a high risk until he was able to accept responsibility for the offence, and its consequences, and could be seen to be working through related issues. The Board did not consider him suitable for release or a move to open conditions.
The third review – July 2000
By this stage Mr Chester had completed the SOTP. He had demonstrated good victim empathy and had made considerable progress in addressing his offending behaviour. The probation officer felt there was still work to be done with respect to addressing future risk. The psychologist, however, felt that progress had been minimal and there was a substantial amount of work to do. Mr Chester had refused interviews with the psychologist and the wing manager. The Board did not recommend release or transfer to open conditions.
The fourth review – December 2004
An impasse in Mr Chester's progress was noted. He had expressed a degree of remorse in relation to his offence. Emotional difficulties had seen Mr Chester placed on two separate F2052sh procedures to guard against self harm. Although angered by the lack of progress he still maintained a degree of motivation.
Upon being transferred to HMP Brixton in order to undertake the Extended SOTP, Mr Chester had deselected himself from the programme after 3 weeks, because of his faith. The psychologist's report highlighted revealed concerns about his coping skills, and identified assessment for various courses, including the Extended SOTP and other programs. None of the report writers recommended release or a move to open conditions. The Board did not recommend any such move.
The fifth review – December 2006
Mr Chester had remained reluctant to engage in treatment programmes as outlined by his sentence plan. He had failed to accept that it was his unwillingness to engage in specific programmes that had impeded his progress. He was bitter that he had spent 29 years in prison. The report writers had noted that Mr Chester would have difficulty in evidencing a reduction in risk, and that he would still be regarded as a danger to the general public until he had completed further work, including the Extended SOTP. Offence focused work had been readily available at HMP Frankland. Mr Chester had received external support through visits from members of the Jezreel New Testament International Church. Once again, the Board concluded that Mr Chester's risk factors remained unaddressed, had not been reduced, and therefore no recommendation for release or a move to open conditions was made.
The sixth review – September 2008
Mr Chester had become "pre-occupied with legal issues regarding his parole review." It was accepted that he had shown considerable insight into his own behaviour at the time of the offence. However, he had still not engaged in any offence-focused work since his last review.
He had said that he would consider undertaking the Extended SOTP at HMP Shepton Mallet (but this would have involved a re-categorisation to category C conditions). He had failed to respond to an invitation by the Psychology Department to engage in an anger management course. His reluctance to participate in sex offender treatment precluded discussion into areas that inform risk management. Mr Chester did not present a major control problem on the wing. However, his attitude changed when there was a change in prison routine or policy. A Mental Health Team report indicated that Mr Chester had received mental health input, and that he showed signs of chronic depression. He had declined medication, and relied on his faith. An OASys assessment put Mr Chester at a medium risk of reconviction and a very high risk of harm to children. Mr Chester disputed formal risk assessments claiming that in the 30 years he has been in prison he had developed coping strategies to avoid re-offending
The tenor of the reports was that there was "no substantial discernible indication of a reduction in risk, and his risk factors had not been addressed." The Board accepted the views of the report writers that there should be no recommendation for release or a move to open conditions.
The May 2010 paper review
For this review the Parole Board were provided with a dossier comprising 109 pages. Included within the dossier were a number of documents :
An OASys report prepared in July or August 2009. This included an assessment of a 76% risk of general re-offending and a high risk of sexual/violent offending. It is, however clear from paragraph 10.1 of the report that Mr Chester refused to participate in the assessment as he regarded it as a waste of time. He was described as...
To continue reading
Request your trial