In R(Clarke) v Parole Board [2025] EWHC 190 (Admin) Mr Justice Fordham quashed the decision of the Parole Board to not grant the Claimant an oral hearing.

The Claimant was a mandatory life sentenced prisoner. He disputed allegations contained in his parole dossier, and his treatment pathway. The Parole Board initially refused to direct his release and/or grant him an oral hearing. The Claimant’s solicitors sent further representations requesting an oral hearing. The Parole Board found no grounds for holding an oral hearing. It held that it was ‘premature’ to hold one in the case, given that the Claimant had a ‘clear’ treatment pathway. The decision was made notwithstanding that there were a number of allegations recorded in the Claimant’s dossier relating to his risk, which he clearly disputed.

The Court quashed the decision on the grounds of procedural unfairness and granted the Claimant an oral hearing. Mr Justice Fordham’s judgment places a strong emphasis on the unlawfulness of Parole Board decisions that relate solely to outcome, when there are other live factors in play.

Stuart Withers represented the Claimant instructed by Chris Topping and Erin Sunderland at Broudie Jackson Canter.

The judgment can be read here.