Amanda Weston and Leonie Hirst (instructed by Prisoners Advice Service ) for the claimant; Tom Weisselberg QC and Naina Patel (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) for the defendant.
The defendant Secretary of State introduced a new policy to restrict the circumstances in which prisoners who had absconded or failed to comply with the terms of return to prisons on which a release on temporary licence had been granted would be eligible to progress to placement in open conditions, and might instead be assigned to a new progression in closed conditions (“the absconder policy”). The defendant refused the claimant’s transfer to open conditions in accordance with that policy. The Administrative Court allowed the claimant’s claim for judicial review of the absconder policy, holding that the policy was unlawful because it was inconsistent with the directions which the defendant had previously issued to the Parole Board. The defendant appealed and the claimant addressed alternative arguments challenging the lawfulness of the policy.
Appeal allowed. The court agreed with the defendant’s submissions that as a matter of interpretation of the directions and of the absconder policy there was no inconsistency between them and that, even if there were an inconsistency, there would not be any relevant inconsistency as a matter of legal analysis because the directions and the policy were directed to different persons and operated at different points in the process of management of prisoners moving through their sentences and the parole system. The Divisional Court’s reasoning could not be sustained. The alternative challenges failed. Further, there was no unfairness in the way the claimant was treated.
Decision of Administrative Court [2015] EWHC 927 (Admin) reversed.