The Queen (on the Application of Kim Hovenden) v The Parole Board
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | His Honour Judge Jeremy Richardson QC |
| Judgment Date | 20 October 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWHC 3738 (Admin) |
| Date | 20 October 2014 |
| Docket Number | CO/2207/2014 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
[2014] EWHC 3738 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
The Courthouse
1 Oxford Row
Leeds
West Yorkshire
LS1 3BG
His Honour Judge Jeremy Richardson QC
CO/2207/2014
Mr J Underill (instructed by Chivers Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Mr T Buley (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
In this judicial review claim Kim Hovenden (the claimant) seeks to challenge a decision of the Parole Board of 27th January 2014, wherein it was decided that his continued confinement in prison was necessary for the purposes of public protection (the decision).
I am indebted to Mr Jonathan Underhill, for the claimant, for his realistic and concise submissions. I am equally indebted to Mr Tim Buley, for the Parole Board, for his helpful contributions. In the end the entire case has been able to be determined upon a single issue about whether the Parole Board applied the right test. Permission to move was granted by Stewart J.
The claimant is a serial sex offender. He is aged 55. It is plain from the narration of his criminal history that he poses an obvious and serious danger to the public. When he was trusted on licence in 2009 it ended in his recall to prison such as to reveal to the Parole Board that he could not be trusted. The facts of the case were summarised in the decision and set out with some clarity. It does not make happy reading.
The Parole Board in the decision concluded:
i. "Based on what has happened in the past, in the absence of treatment and in light of your behaviour whilst on licence, the Panel have concluded if re-released there is a real and significant risk of you once again breaching licensed conditions with the consequential risk of you committing further sexual offences. Given this, the very vulnerable nature of your previous victims and the escalating nature of your sexual offending the Panel has concluded that your risks are such that your continued confinement remains necessary for public protection purposes."
It is accepted by both sides that paragraph plainly reveals the Parole Board applied the correct test when reaching its conclusion.
The public protections test that has to be applied is contained within section 225C(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (as amended by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012), which provides:
i. "The Secretary of State must not release (the prisoner) under subsection (2) unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is not necessary for the protection of the public that (the prisoner) should remain in prison…"
It is unnecessary for me to refer to legislative history for present purposes or helpful explanatory judgment of the Divisional Court in R (on the application of) Benjamin King v Parole Board [2014] EWHC 564 (Admin). In this case it is argued that the opening paragraph of the decision reveals the Parole Board applied the wrong test and that permeated the entire fabric of the decision. The opening paragraph reads:
i. "A three member panel of the Parole Board considered your case at an oral hearing on 24th January 2014. In deciding whether to direct your release the Panel must release you unless it is satisfied that there exists a risk that you will commit offences of the type for which you were sentenced or the licence is broken down to a point where supervision has been rendered impossible. The Panel also explored any areas of continuing risk."
Thereafter, the Parole Board analysed the circumstances of the case. This included the following: First, in 1975, 1982 and 1994 the claimant was convicted of sexual crimes. Second, he has...
To continue reading
Request your trial