Wells, R (On the Application Of) v Parole Board [2019] EWHC 2710 (Admin) (17 October 2019)

Wells, R (On the Application Of) v Parole Board [2019] EWHC 2710 (Admin) (17 October 2019)

The Parole Board misdirected itself in law by applying an incorrect threshold for release, requiring the claimant to demonstrate he would be 'offence free' rather than assessing whether continued detention was necessary for public protection. The decision was also irrational and inadequately reasoned in light of unanimous expert evidence supporting release and the absence of any contrary evidence.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2710 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Mark Wells; Defendant: Parole Board
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; decision quashed; matter remitted for reconsideration.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review of Parole Board, Post Tariff Detention, Risk Assessment, Release of Indeterminate Sentence Prisoners, Duty to Give Reasons
Public Law Criminal Law Prison Law Judicial Review of Parole Board Post Tariff Detention Risk Assessment Release of Indeterminate Sentence Prisoners Duty to Give Reasons

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Wells

Claimant

Parole Board

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Parole Board misdirected itself in law regarding the threshold for release of a post-tariff IPP prisoner
  2. 2 Whether the Parole Board's decision was irrational or inadequately reasoned
  3. 3 Whether relevant considerations were properly addressed by the Parole Board

Ratio Decidendi

The Parole Board misdirected itself in law by applying an incorrect threshold for release, requiring the claimant to demonstrate he would be 'offence free' rather than assessing whether continued detention was necessary for public protection. The decision was also irrational and inadequately reasoned in light of unanimous expert evidence supporting release and the absence of any contrary evidence.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; decision quashed; matter remitted for reconsideration.

Orders

  • The decision of the Parole Board dated 2 April 2019 is quashed.
  • The application for release is to be referred to a fresh panel of the Parole Board.