Prison Case Law Update written by Maya Hanson.

Should the Parole Board grant an oral hearing for recalled prisoners, even if there are outstanding police investigations? Does fairness require an oral hearing? Is it right for the Parole Board to say that an oral hearing is not required because it would be “premature”?

In R(AA) v Parole Board [2025] EWHC 997 (Admin) the Parole Board refused to grant an oral hearing to a recalled determinate sentenced prisoner as the prisoner’s mobile phone was awaiting a full forensic analysis by the police, and so it was ‘premature’ to direct an oral hearing. The claimant issued a claim for judicial review seeking to challenge the Board’s decision not to grant an oral hearing.

The sole issue in this case concerned whether fairness required the Parole Board to grant the prisoner an oral hearing.

The claimant relied heavily upon the established principles in Osborn. The claimant also referred to several authorities dealing with the application of these principles and where the Court has held that fairness requires an oral hearing where one has not been held. Those authorities were:

1. R(Stubbs) v Parole Board [2021] EWHC 605 (Admin), where allegations in a parole dossier were disputed by the prisoner. It was held that the refusal of an oral hearing denied the claimant the opportunity to make an effective challenge to those allegations, which would have been relevant to the assessment of risk. The decision of the Parole Board to not grant an oral hearing was quashed.
2. R(Dich and Murphy) v Parole Board and Secretary of State for Justice [2023] EWHC 945 (Admin), where the decision of the Parole Board refusing to direct an oral hearing was quashed because there were significant factual issues in dispute.
3. R(Somers) v Parole Board [2023] EWHC 1160 (Admin), where the decision of the Parole Board to not grant an oral hearing to a prisoner serving a life sentence was quashed because an inadequately evidenced allegation made against the claimant, coupled with the claimant’s denial of the allegation, required close scrutiny at an oral hearing.
4. R(Wylie) v Parole Board [2024] EWHC 52, where it was held that the refusal of the Parole Board to grant an oral hearing was procedurally unfair, notwithstanding that a police investigation remained live, but was shortly to be concluded. Procedural fairness required an oral hearing, or at least an adjournment to clarify matters.

The High Court found, in this case, found that procedural fairness required an oral hearing for the following reasons:

• a number of the classic Osborn principles were engaged.
• a decision to grant an oral hearing is separate to a decision of when the case is ready to be heard.
• the Board has wide case management powers to request further information and to manage the case i.e. The directions could have provided for the immediate disclosure of the initial forensic analysis and a reasonable period of time for disclosure of the full forensic analysis of the Claimant’s phone.
• by stating that an oral hearing was premature the Board had failed to discharge its important duty to make a decision about the appropriateness of the recall.
• The Board denied the Claimant the opportunity to contest the disputed allegations at an oral hearing.
• The approach taken was contrary to the Parole Board’s Guidance on Allegations, which required them to investigate relevant and disputed allegations and make findings on those disputed allegations.
• The Board delegated the issue of whether fairness required a hearing to the Secretary of State, by asking it to re-refer the case once the outcome of the police investigation was known.

The decision refusing the Claimant’s request for an oral hearing was quashed.

Maya Hanson is regularly instructed to defend and prosecute in the Crown, Magistrates and Youth Courts.

Call our Criminal Clerk on 01482 014658 or email clerks@crown-chambers.com to book.