Smith, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for Justice

Smith, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for Justice

Procedural fairness required an oral hearing in this case due to the unanimous expert and Local Advisory Panel recommendations for downgrading, the lack of clear reasons from the Director and CART for rejecting those recommendations, the presence of significant factual and expert disputes, and the fact that the Claimant had never had an oral hearing in 14 years as a Category A prisoner. The refusal to grant an oral hearing was unlawful.

Parties
Claimant: Conroy Smith; Defendant: Secretary of State for Justice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Application for Judicial Review
Outcome
Claim for judicial review allowed
Legal Topics
Prisoner Categorisation, Oral Hearings, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review, Prison Service Instructions
Administrative Law Prison Law Procedural Fairness Prisoner Categorisation Oral Hearings Judicial Review Prison Service Instructions

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Conroy Smith

Claimant

Secretary of State for Justice

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Application for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to grant an oral hearing in the Claimant's Category A review was procedurally fair
  2. 2 Whether the decision to maintain the Claimant in Category A despite unanimous expert recommendations to downgrade was lawful

Ratio Decidendi

Procedural fairness required an oral hearing in this case due to the unanimous expert and Local Advisory Panel recommendations for downgrading, the lack of clear reasons from the Director and CART for rejecting those recommendations, the presence of significant factual and expert disputes, and the fact that the Claimant had never had an oral hearing in 14 years as a Category A prisoner. The refusal to grant an oral hearing was unlawful.

Court Disposition

Claim for judicial review allowed

Orders

  • Decision of the Category A Review Team dated 15 October 2019 refusing an oral hearing is quashed