Fox, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice

Fox, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice

Procedural fairness required an oral hearing in this case because the Category A Team failed to properly consider or address critical psychological evidence (the December 2010 Simmons report) relevant to risk and suitability for DSPD services, and relied on outdated or incomplete assessments. The refusal of an oral hearing was therefore wrong and the September 2011 decision must be quashed.

Parties
Claimant: Michael Fox; Defendant: Secretary of State for Justice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim allowed; decision quashed
Legal Topics
Prisoner Categorisation, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review, Oral Hearings, Risk Assessment
Public Law Prison Law Administrative Law Prisoner Categorisation Procedural Fairness Judicial Review Oral Hearings Risk Assessment

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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Fox

Claimant

Secretary of State for Justice

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to convene an oral hearing for Category A review was procedurally fair
  2. 2 Whether the defendant wrongly applied an exceptionality test instead of the fairness test for oral hearings
  3. 3 Whether fairness required an oral hearing in the claimant's case

Ratio Decidendi

Procedural fairness required an oral hearing in this case because the Category A Team failed to properly consider or address critical psychological evidence (the December 2010 Simmons report) relevant to risk and suitability for DSPD services, and relied on outdated or incomplete assessments. The refusal of an oral hearing was therefore wrong and the September 2011 decision must be quashed.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; decision quashed

Orders

  • The September 2011 Category A decision is quashed.
  • An oral hearing must be held for the claimant's Category A review.