Daniel Garner represented a client in a high-profile judicial review – Parole Board guidance on the ‘at risk’ period for determinate sentence prisoners is declared unlawful by the High Court

R(Dich & Murphy) v Parole Board [2023] EWHC 945 (Admin) – Daniel successfully represented Mr Murphy in a judicial review of the Parole Board’s failure to direct Mr Murphy’s case to an oral hearing. The Court found that fairness required that Mr Murphy be given a right to an oral hearing as there were significant factual issues in dispute. As a result, the High Court quashed the Parole Board’s decision to conclude Mr Murphy’s case on the papers, ordering that the Parole Board consider Mr Murphy’s application for release by a fresh panel at an oral hearing at the earliest date possible.

This challenge was also significant for the wider prison population whose release will be decided by the Parole Board as the High Court found that the Parole Board guidance on the ‘at risk’ period for extended determinate and determinate sentence prisoners was unlawful. The High Court’s decision overruled the Parole Board’s guidance which was that Panel’s were entitled to consider risk on an indefinite basis in the case of determinate and extended determinate sentence prisoners which was the same test applied for prisoners serving life and IPP sentences. The High Court held that the Parole Board were entitled to consider risk beyond the sentence expiry date, so long as the appropriate causal link could be established. The High Court made clear that the word indefinite was to be removed from the Parole Board guidance.