R v Parole Board, ex parte Watson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,I,LORD JUSTICE ROSE,LORD JUSTICE ROCH |
| Judgment Date | 04 March 1996 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1996] EWCA Civ J0304-4 |
| Docket Number | QBCOF 95/1663/D |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 04 March 1996 |
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
[1996] EWCA Civ J0304-4
(Mr. Justice Popplewell)
Before: The Master of the Rolls (Sir Thomas Bingham) Lord Justice Rose Lord Justice Roch
QBCOF 95/1663/D
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(CROWN OFFICE LIST)
MR. E FITZGERALD QC (Instructed by Messrs. B M Birnberg & Co. DX57059, Camden Town) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
MR. S KOVATS (Instructed by The Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
Monday 4 March 1996
THE MASTER OF THE ROLLSMr Watson received a discretionary sentence of life imprisonment. After serving a long term in prison he was released on licence. After just over a year at liberty his licence was revoked and he was recalled to prison. The Parole Board informally confirmed this recall. Having later considered his case in detail the Parole Board decided not to direct his release and he remains in prison. He obtained leave to challenge the lawfulness of this decision by the Parole Board. His challenge was rejected by Popplewell J. Mr Watson renews his challenge in this court.
Mr Watson is now aged 53. In April 1975 he was convicted on four counts of buggery and five of indecent assault and was sentenced to life imprisonment on each of the counts of buggery and to seven years concurrently on each of the counts of indecent assault. The offences were committed against schoolboys and were accompanied by beatings and other sadistic acts. At the time of these convictions Mr Watson had previous convictions of indecent assault on boys aged nine and thirteen and buggery of a boy aged nine.
On 29 January 1993 the Home Secretary directed Mr Watson's release on licence and he was released on 1 February 1993. He had been in prison (including a period on remand) for over eighteen years. His licence contained terms which required him to place himself under the supervision of a probation officer and to report in accordance with that officer's instructions. In August 1993 he was advised by his solicitor that there was no reason why two young men named James Wilson and Stephen Goodall should not stay with him as his guest. His probation officers, however, were concerned at his association with these young men, one of whom was eighteen and the other (Goodall) seventeen. They were also concerned at reports of contacts between Mr Watson and a fourteen year old boy who had absconded from a children's home. The probation officers had elicited information from Mr Watson about his contacts with this boy, and had also warned him of the inappropriateness of his seeking to establish a parental or supervisory relationship with these young men. Reports were written on 10 and 13 December 1993 recording these concerns. It was decided to seek a report from Dr Mendelson, a consultant forensic psychiatrist.
Dr Mendelson reported in writing on 16 February 1994. In the course of his report he said:
"I am particularly concerned by his refusal to associate with a more age-appropriate group of homosexuals. Instead, he still indulges his interest in young men and is eagerly looking forward to the proposed age reduction of consenting homosexuals. However, he still denies having any sexual fantasies or urges towards young boys. He claims that he is mixing with the youths, as you no doubt heard from his Probation Officer, only to fulfil his needs to care for others. Yet he admits that he finds these dependent relationships somewhat rewarding. They are of course partly reminiscent of his original behaviour surrounding the index offences."
Dr Mendelson referred to a meeting at which he and the probation officer had impressed their concerns on Mr Watson and he expressed a hope (described as "slim") that this might have some influence on him. Dr Mendelson continued:
"I cannot say that David Watson is in imminent danger of reoffending. However, I regret that he is failing to make the progress that either his Probation Officer or I would wish. Moreover, by maintaining his association with youths, he is inevitably going to come into contact with boys and situations of temptation. In his seemingly arrogant way, he will not consider that this is a risk, nor that he need not even take it. I feel that unless he can change his attitude it is likely that he will fall into further trouble. He is of course extremely vulnerable to allegations and I doubt whether the youngsters he chooses to mix with will be that long in discovering the potential to blackmail him. However, he remains confident this will not be the case, despite discussing our frank concerns with him."
Dr Mendelson believed that Mr Watson had the potential to develop adequately and minimise the risk of re-offending and did not consider that there were grounds for his recall to prison at that time.
At the instigation of the probation officers, Mr Watson's case was referred to the Parole Board who recommended the addition of a further condition to his licence. The Secretary of State on 17 March 1994 accordingly directed that a condition be added that Mr Watson should not entertain at his residence male persons under the age of consent nor engage in any activity involving such persons without the permission of his probation officer. A letter was written to Mr Watson warning him about his future conduct and informing him of this new condition. The letter was handed to Mr Watson on 23 March 1994 and he signed a written copy of the condition. It appears that on being notified of this condition Mr Watson told Goodall to leave his bedsitter in which Goodall had for some time been living, but Mr Watson did not tell the probation officer that Goodall had been doing so.
On the same day, 23 March 1994, Goodall went to Mr Watson's probation officer and made a report. The effect of the report (later recorded in a written statement) was that Mr Watson had asked Goodall to get hold of a gun and had suggested that the two of them should take Wilson to the New Forest, beat him up and kill him. The probation officers were concerned to learn not only the details of this proposed plan but also that Goodall had been living at Mr Watson's address without the knowledge or permission of the probation officer. It was agreed that the Home Office should be informed and that Mr Watson's recall should be recommended. This recommendation was accepted. On 26 March 1994 Mr Watson's licence was revoked by the Home Secretary and he was recalled to prison.
Reasons for his recall were given to Mr Watson in prison in these terms:
"The Secretary of State revoked your life licence on 26 March 1994, under section 39(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.
This action was taken after evidence was received indicating that you had allegedly suggested that a firearm be obtained on your behalf. It was also alleged at a later date, that you spoke of a plan to attack, and possibly kill a young man.
These recent developments have followed earlier events and concerns expressed by the Probation Service and Dr Mendelson, which resulted in the conditions of your licence being varied. In addition you have concealed from your supervising officer the fact that you had been co-habiting with a 17 year old boy since January 1994. Having regard to all the circumstances, in particular the offences for which you were sentenced to life imprisonment, the Secretary of State considered that your presence in the community no longer constituted an acceptable risk to the safety of others. For that reason, he decided to immediately revoke your life licence and recall you to prison."
On 30 March 1994 the Parole Board considered and confirmed
Mr Watson's recall. Its reasons were:
"1.The pattern of your conduct since release on licence belies the assurances that you gave to the Board and falsifies the belief then held that you could be released without risk to the public.
2.This conduct has already led to changes in the conditions of your licence and you have received one warning letter on 23 March 1994.
3.Finally your offering accommodation to a boy of seventeen and hiding this fact from your probation officer makes recall inevitable."
Arrangements were put in train for a formal review of Mr Watson's recall by the Parole Board. For this review, a considerable body of documentary material was placed before the Board, including copies of reports by probation officers, the statement by Goodall, the letter of Dr Mendelson, the Board's recommendation of 30 March 1994, statements by a Governor and Chaplain at Winchester Prison, written representations by and on behalf of Mr Watson, a letter from his solicitors and testimonials to his character. The review took place on 22 July 1994 when Mr Watson was represented by counsel. On 25 July 1994 the Parole Board wrote to Mr Watson giving its reasons for not recommending his release. This letter is of importance and its terms should be quoted in full:
" Discretionary Lifer Panel —22 July 1994
1.On 26 March 1994 the Secretary of State revoked your life licence and recalled you to prison. This decision was confirmed by the Parole Board on 30 March 1994. Pursuant to Section 39(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, a panel of the Parole Board convened on 22 July 1994 to consider your representations against recall. The Act requires the Board to direct your release only if it is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that you be confined. The panel were not so satisfied and have therefore rejected your representations.
2.The panel carefully...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (Gulliver) v Parole Board
...of the reasons for recall, but should exercise its own judgment in deciding whether to recommend the release of the prisoner; R v Parole Board, ex parte Watson 1996 1WLR 906, 916e-917b, 918a-b, 918e-f and 919g-h. 4. In exercising its own judgment, the Parole Board must of course consider al......
-
R (West) v Parole Board; R (Smith) v Parole Board (No 2) (Conjoined Appeals)
...It is the primary decision-maker, not entitled to defer to the opinion of the Secretary of State or a probation officer: R v Parole Board, Ex p Watson [1996] 1 WLR 906, 916. As the materials already cited make clear, the Parole Board is concerned, and concerned only, with the assessment of......
-
R (Brooke and Others) v Parole Board
...down in relation to his re-release, but it is implicit that the same test is applicable – see the comment of Lord Bingham MR in R v Parole Board ex parte Watson [1996] 1 WLR 906 at 50 This test will not necessarily be appropriate in the case of fixed term prisoners who have been released c......
-
R (Vary and Others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...of the defendant, prisoner or applicant. This proposition too is vouched by compelling authority. Thus in R v Parole Board ex p Watson [1996] 1 WLR 906, 916-919, the Court of Appeal recognised the paramount duty of the Board to protect innocent members of the public against any significant ......