The High Court has quashed a decision of the Secretary of State to refuse to transfer a prisoner to open conditions for the second time in R(Goldsmith) v Secretary of State for Justice [2026] EWHC 1626 (Admin).

The Claimant Mr Goldsmith was initially recommended for open conditions by the Parole Board on 30 August 2023. The Defendant, the Secretary of State for Justice, rejected the Board’s advice on 17 November 2023. That decision was challenged by judicial review and the Claimant was successful. The decision was quashed and the Defendant was ordered to make a fresh decision.

On 3 February 2025 the Defendant issued a fresh decision and again refused to transfer the Claimant to open conditions. The Claimant brought a fresh claim for judicial review. He argued that the decision was irrational and that it had failed to address the High Court’s previous findings that the Parole Board enjoyed a particular advantage over the Defendant.

On 26 June 2026 the Court handed down its judgment and allowed the claim for judicial review. The Court held:

“What is strikingly absent from the decision’s consideration of the first question is any substantive reference to, or any sufficient attempt to address, HHJ Claire Jackson’s reasons for allowing the first judicial review. Although the decision’s opening paragraph referred to the quashing of the November 2023 decision and the order to consider matters afresh, there was no reference to the substance of the judge’s reasoning and conclusions at all. Notably, there was no attempt to engage with the judge’s conclusion that the Board had a particular advantage in relation to the link between the Claimant’s diagnosis, personality characteristics and the risks that arise. If the Secretary of State did not consider that the Board had that advantage, the decision did not explain why…. The lawfulness of the present decision is, in my judgment, vitiated by the same flaw as the first. Having carefully considered the decision, in my judgment, the Secretary of State effectively ignored the judge’s reasoning and conclusions and so they were not addressed. That finding is sufficient to decide the one ground of challenge in the Claimant’s favour.”

Stuart Withers represented the Claimant. He was instructed by Andrew Sperling and Yasmin Karabasic of SL5 Legal.