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

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

The court held that neither common law fairness nor PSI 08/2013 required an oral hearing in this case, as there was no critical dispute of fact or expert opinion relevant to the Category A team's assessment of risk if the Claimant were unlawfully at large. The differences between expert reports related to parole...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Omar Khyam; Defendant: Secretary of State for Justice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Prisoner Categorisation, Procedural Fairness, Oral Hearings, Adequacy of Reasons, Risk Assessment, Judicial Review Standards
Prison Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Prisoner Categorisation Procedural Fairness Oral Hearings Adequacy of Reasons Risk Assessment +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Omar Khyam

Claimant

Secretary of State for Justice

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to hold an oral hearing for Category A review breached common law procedural fairness and/or Prison Service Instruction 08/2013
  2. 2 Whether the reasons given for maintaining Category A status were adequate and intelligible

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that neither common law fairness nor PSI 08/2013 required an oral hearing in this case, as there was no critical dispute of fact or expert opinion relevant to the Category A team's assessment of risk if the Claimant were unlawfully at large. The differences between expert reports related to parole suitability, not the specific risk test for Category A status. The reasons given for the decision were adequate and addressed the key issues, and any omission regarding the sincerity of the Claimant's progress would not have affected the outcome.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed