The Cost of Open Conditions: R (Samuel) v Parole Board [2020] EWHC 42 (Admin)
| DOI | 10.1177/0022018320920993 |
| Published date | 01 June 2020 |
| Date | 01 June 2020 |
| Author | Andrew Beetham |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
The Journal of Criminal Law
2020, Vol. 84(3) 263–265
The Cost of Open Conditions
ª The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0022018320920993
R (Samuel) v Parole Board [2020] EWHC 42 (Admin)
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj
Keywords
Indeterminate sentence prisoner, release on licence, open conditions, Parole Board neutral
stance in litigation, liability for costs
The Claimant was an indeterminate sentence prisoner having been convicted in 2006 of one count of
wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, two counts of robbery, one count of aggravated
burglary and two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The Claimant was at the time of the
index offences aged 17 and was sentenced to detention for public protection with a minimum term of five
years. This expired in 2011. As a result, the Claimant was entitled to regular reviews by the Parole Board.
In February 2019, the Parole Board considered the Claimant’s case at an oral hearing and concluded that
he should not be released or transferred to open conditions.
The Claimant sought to judicially review the decision of the Parole Board on three grounds: (1) they
had failed to apply the correct test in respect of whether a recommendation for open conditions could be
made; (2) they made findings that were not based on the evidence and, as such, were unreasonable in
doing so; and (3) they had acted unlawfully in failing to provide a note of the record of the hearing.
Permission to apply for judicial review was granted.
Held, by the Administrative Court (Clive Sheldon QC, sitting as a deputy judge of the High
Court) allowing the claim for judicial review, that (1) the Parole Board was required to carry out a
separate test on whether to recommend a transfer to open conditions and there was no evidence in the
decision that they had done so, and this was an error of law (at [31]). (2) Statements by the Parole Board
did not reflect the full position that was being...
To continue reading
Request your trial