Parole Board decision quashed for lack of reasons and irrationality (and Treasury Solicitor’s conduct described as “scandalous”)  

R (John O’Sullivan) v Parole Board [2009] (6 July 2009, Admin Ct Manchester, Irwin J) Case ref: CO/7474/2008

> judgment

The Claimant is serving detention at Her Majesty’s Pleasure for a murder he committed when aged 16. He is well past his tariff expiry date and the Parole Board have reviewed his case on a number of occasions, recommending progressive moves to open conditions. These have been rejected by the Secretary of State.

In May 2008 the Parole Board again reviewed the case and after a 2 day hearing determined that he should stay in closed conditions. This was despite all witnesses recommending either release or a move to open conditions. Following the decision three prison service witnesses indicated that the decision letter did not correctly reflect their evidence.

The Parole Board did not respond substantively to a request for a further review and therefore JR proceedings were taken, arguing that the decision letter had not given any or sufficient reasons for departing from the recommendations of all the witnesses, and it was irrational in light of the fact that it did not reflect the evidence given at the hearing.

Despite the Court making directions concerning the lodging of an Acknowledgement of Service the Parole Board did not respond to the claim and permission was granted in October 2008. Despite a number of reminders no detailed defence or evidence was filed until the day before the full hearing.

The Claimant successfully argued that the Parole Board should not be able to defend the claim because of the extremely late service of a defence without any proper excuse (lack of resources within the Treasury Solicitor’s department was advanced). The judge gave a ruling on this aspect of the case describing the conduct of the Treasury Solicitors as “scandalous” and ordering that a transcript be sent to the heads of the Treasury Solicitors and the Parole Board.

On the substantive issue the Court ruled in favour of the Claimant, quashed the decision and ordered the next review to be undertaken as soon as possible with a long-stop date.

Comment

It is highly unusual for the Court to rule that a public authority should not be able to defend a Claim for judicial review, but the Treasury Solicitors failure in this case was indeed remarkable.

Mr O’Sullivan was represented by Pete Weatherby of GCN and Kristen Bender of Scott-Moncrief Harbour and Sinclair .