R v Parole Board, ex parte Bradley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 April 1990 |
| Date | 04 April 1990 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
Prisons - Prisoners' rights - Release on licence - Prisoner serving discretionary life sentence - Parole Board refusing to recommend release to Secretary of State - Whether risk of danger to public sufficient not to recommend release - Whether prisoner entitled to reasons for decision and for disclosure of reports before board -
The applicant pleaded guilty on 4 October 1976 to attempted murder of a girl aged 17 and indecent assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm on a girl aged 14. Doctors were unable to give a firm opinion on the applicant's mental state but the applicant had told police officers on his arrest that he had tried to kill the victim and that he had wanted to see what it would be like to kill someone. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. In accordance with the duty of the Parole Board, under section 59(3)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 to advise the Secretary of State on the release of the applicant on licence under section 61 of the Act, the local review committee considered parole in 1984 but the Parole Board decided in 1986 not to recommend to the Secretary of State that the applicant be released on licence. The applicant, believing that psychiatric reports were favourable, again applied to the board in 1987 but, in 1988, the board refused to make the recommendation and refused a request for the applicant to be given the reasons for the decision.
On an application for judicial review of the Parole Board's 1988 decision refusing to recommend his release on licence and their refusal to give reasons for that decision and also for an order for discovery of the reports on which the board's decision was based: —
Held, dismissing the application, (1) that the justification for a court imposing a discretionary life sentence was the perception of grave future risk amounting to an actual likelihood of danger to the public if a defendant was released after he had completed the period of imprisonment merited as punishment for the crime; that the same test did not apply to the Parole Board when considering the release of the applicant after he had served the “tariff” period for his crimes since the board had to consider the risk of immediately releasing the applicant; that the board had to consider both the unfairness to the applicant in his continued detention and the risk to the public and, when considering the material factors, the board had to weigh those conflicting interests and had to determine whether there was more than a perceptible or minimal risk which amounted in their subjective judgment to be sufficiently unacceptable to recommend to the Secretary of State that the applicant be released (post, p. 146A–G).
(2) That the board in taking their decision not to recommend that the applicant be released had applied the correct test and there was nothing in their decision which rendered it unreasonable; that the board was under no obligation to give their reasons for the decision and, therefore, since there were no grounds for quashing the decision, the applicant was not entitled to an order for disclosure of the reports before the board (post, pp. 147H–148B, H–149A, 150H, 152F–G).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment of the court:
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation [
C.E.M.I. Ltd., In re (unreported), 18 February 1988, Henry J.
Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service [
Gunnell v. United Kingdom, 7 September
Payne v. Lord Harris of Greenwich [
Reg. v. Dempster (
Reg. v. Hillingdon London Borough Council, Ex parte Puhlhofer [
Reg. v. Hodgson (
Reg. v. O'Dwyer (Note) (
Reg. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Benson, The Independent, 16 November 1988,
Reg. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Gunnell, The Times, 7 November 1984; Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Transcript No. 391 of 1984,
Reg. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Handscomb (
Reg. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Harrison (unreported), 10 December 1987; Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Transcript No. 1246 of 1987,
Reg. v. Stewart (
Reg. v. Wilkinson (
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Campbell v. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [
Conway v. Rimmer [
Raymond v. Honey [
Reg. v. Mental Health Review Tribunal, Ex parte Chatworthy [
Reg. v. Birch (
Reg. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Brind [
Reg. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Tarrant [
Reg. v. Secretary of State for Social Services, Ex parte Connolly [
Weeks v. United Kingdom (
Williams v. Home Office [
APPLICATION for judicial review.
The applicant, William Bradley, had been convicted in October 1976 of the attempted murder of a girl of 17 and of indecent assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm on a girl aged 14 and was sentenced to life imprisonment. In June 1987, following his assessment by the local review committee the Parole Board refused to recommend him to the Secretary of State for the Home Department for release on licence. The Parole Board again considered his case in November 1987 but again did not recommend release. The applicant then applied to obtain the reasons for the decision but his application was refused.
The applicant applied for judicial review on the grounds that in their refusal to recommend the applicant for release the Parole Board had used the wrong test in assessing the risk of danger which the applicant posed; that in going against all the advice and opinions that had been submitted the decision was unreasonable; that the refusal to give the reasons for their decision was against natural justice; and that Payne v. Lord Harris of Greenwich [
The facts are stated in the judgment.
Edward Fitzgerald for the applicant.
David Pannick and Robert Howe for the Parole Board.
4 April. STUART-SMITH L.J. read the following judgment of the court. This is an application for judicial review of two decisions of the Parole Board. By the first taken in about January 1988 the board refused to recommend the applicant for parole. By the second, given by letter dated 6 July 1988, the board refused to give the applicant the reasons for their decision.
The historyThe applicant was born on 25 February 1958. On 9 February 1975 he was convicted of the rape of a 15-year-old girl and sentenced to three months detention. On 18 April 1976 he committed offences of indecent assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm on a 14-year-old girl and on 8 May 1976 he attempted to murder a 17-year-old girl. He pleaded guilty to these three offences at the Crown Court at Cardiff on 4 October 1976 and was sentenced to life imprisonment, with concurrent sentences of nine and 15 months for the indecent and actual bodily harm assaults. It is necessary to relate the facts of the attempted murder in a little more detail. The applicant met the girl at a party and they subsequently went to a disco; after the disco the girl allowed a certain amount of sexual petting; however, when the applicant tried to have sexual intercourse with her, she made it plain that she did not want it and pushed him off. When she tried to go he put his hands round her throat and started to throttle her, saying that he would kill her. After a while he let her go, she struggled to her feet and tried to escape. However, the applicant pursued her, dragged her back to the bus shelter where the first assault had taken place and again started to throttle her. She tried to struggle and again escaped for a few moments; but in her flight she fell into a bramble bush and again the applicant pulled her to the ground and tried to throttle her. On each occasion that he had his hands round her neck she said she was unable to breathe and thought she was going to pass out. Eventually, however, she got away and sought help. When he was arrested the applicant told the police that he had nearly strangled her. He is recorded as saying:
“I tried to kill her. I wanted to see what it was like to kill somebody. People are saying that I am a rapist, they are playing on my nerves. If I don't kill someone I'll kill myself.”
A little later he said: “I don't know how to describe it. Something like snapped in my head and I sort of attacked her.” He was asked if the girl had done anything to offend him and he said: “Nothing. I think I am going mad.” And he said: “I lost control, it was like as if I was somebody else. I put my hands on her neck and squeezed. I wanted to see what it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (Sturnham) v Parole Board & Secretary of State for Justice
...when release is being considered. This was, as it seems to me, effectively given the lie by the Divisional Court in Ex parte Bradley [1991] 1 WLR 134, referred to by Mitting J in his judgment at paragraph 22. In that case the court (Stuart Smith LJ and Simon Brown J as he then was) had to ......
-
R (on the application of Ben King) v The Parole Board The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Interested Party)
...kind. The position with regard to prisoners serving discretionary life sentences was as follows. In R v Parole Board, ex parte Bradley [1991] 1 WLR 134, the Divisional Court propounded a test that has become known as the "life and limb" test: is there more than a minimal risk that the priso......
-
R (Hirst) v Parole Board and Secretary of State for the Home Department
...obligation imposed in section 3 of the 1998 Act came into force. 5450. It is important to appreciate that the court in Bradley [1990] 3 All ER 828 was considering the meaning of the test of dangerousness in relation to post-tariff discretionary lifers, but accepted that the test of dangero......
-
R (Sim) v Parole Board
...is the test adopted in the case of prisoners serving a discretionary life sentence, albeit in relation to a different risk: see R v Parole Board ex p. Bradley [1991] 1 WLR 134. I see no reason why that approach should not be equally applicable here. I do not consider that any higher test i......