Michael Bimmler

The Secretary of State had refused a recommendation by the Parole Board that the Claimant, a life prisoner, be transferred to open prison conditions. In allowing the claim and quashing the Secretary of State’s decision, the Court (Fordham J) reviewed the relevant authorities in detail and set out a list of seven key principles material to the Secretary of State’s exercise of discretion. The Secretary of State has obtained permission to appeal from the Court of Appeal, which will hear the case in the course of 2024. Michael acts for the Claimant, as sole counsel in the High Court and led by Jude Bunting KC in the Court of Appeal.

​​[2024] 1 WLR 1081; [2023] EWCA Civ 842 (Court of Appeal)
[2022] EWHC 1376 (Admin) (High Court)

The Claimant, a prisoner, had asked an Independent Adjudicator to dismiss disciplinary charges
against him on no proper consideration had been given to the referral of the charges to her. He obtained permission for judicial review from the Court of Appeal (Popplewell LJ) and was successful in the substantive hearing in the Administrative Court (Hugh Mercer QC sitting as a Deputy Judge). On appeal by the Secretary of State for Justice as Interested Party, the Court of Appeal reversed the first instance judgment. It held that prison discipline was meant to provide a simple, speedy and proportionate system of justice, with no duty on the Independent Adjudicator to inquire into a referring governor’s reasoning. Michael was sole Counsel for the Claimant in the High Court and the Court of Appeal.

[2024] A.C.D. 2; [2023] EWHC 2962 (Admin) (Costs Judgment)
[2023] EWHC 1160 (Admin) (Substantive Judgment)/a>
The Claimant was aggrieved by the Parole Board’s failure to convene an oral hearing in his parole review, which was contrary to longstanding guidance by the Supreme Court. The Parole Board was neutral in the claim but following the grant of permission to apply for judicial review sought further guidance from the Court on the scenarios in which oral hearings were (not) required. The Court (Foster J) allowed the claim and set out the existence of a quasi-presumption in favour of oral hearings for post-tariff life prisoners. In a separate judgment, Her Ladyship held that it had been unreasonable for the Parole Board not to concede the case and that it was thus liable for the Claimant’s case although it appeared in the case as a neutral judicial body. Michael acted for the Claimant as sole counsel in the pre-permission stage and led by Jude Bunting KC for the substantive hearing and costs submissions.

[2023] 1 WLR 2519; [2023] EWHC 555 (Admin) (First judgment)
[2023] 1 WLR 2564; [2023] 2 Cr App R 7 (Second judgment)
[2023] EWHC 1438 (KB) (Third judgment)

A Divisional Court (Macur LJ and Chamberlain J) held that the Secretary of State had acted unlawfully in amending the Parole Board Rules and issuing guidance to the effect that in parole reviews, prison and probation service employees and contractors could no longer express a view on whether a prisoner ought to be released from custody or transferred to open conditions.

In a second judgment, the Court held that refusal by a witness to answer an oral question by the Parole Board could amount to contempt and the person instructing the witness not to answer could equally be guilty of contempt. As part of its conclusion, it held that the law of contempt applies to proceedings before the Parole Board, which it found to be a court of tribunal exercising the judicial power of the state. Any alleged contempt would have to be addressed in proceedings before the High Court.

In a third judgment, having considered further evidence disclosed by the Secretary of State on how the unlawful amendment to the rules and unlawful guidance had come into existence, the Court held that it would not be in the public interest to initiate contempt proceedings in the present instance.

Michael Bimmler acted for the Claimants led by Philip Rule KC.

The Claimant sought judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision that he was to remain a Category A (high security) prisoner and that he was not entitled to an oral hearing in this regard. The Court (Dexter Dias KC sitting as a Deputy Judge) found that on the totality of the materials, the decision-maker was entitled to form the view that no oral hearing was required and he could fairly take the decision on the writtern materials before him. Michael acted for the Claimant.

The Court (Sir Ross Cranston) held that the Secretary of State had unlawfully decided to reject a recommendation by the Parole Board that the Claimant be progressed from closed to open prison conditions, because the decision-maker had failed to take into account the absence of an uptodate psychological risk assessment (‘HCR-20’) which was a material consideration. Michael acted for the Cliamant.

The Court (Steyn J) granted this application for judicial review and found that the Secretary of State had acted irrationally when decided to refuse a Parole Board recommendation that the Claimant be transferred to open prison conditions, picking out individual aspects of the risk assessment but not giving a rational justification from the overall conclusions of the Parole Board. Michael acted for the Claimant.

The Claimant had sought judicial review of a decision by the Secretary of State that he is to remain a Category A (high security) prisoner and that no oral hearing was required in his security category review. The Court (HHJ Walden-Smith sitting as a Judge of the High Court) held that the decision-making process was not unfair or in breach of published policy in the circumstances, as no issue arose that required clarification at an oral hearing and could not be considered on the papers. Michael acted for the Claimant.

The Claimant was a prisoner in an open prison whose application for release on temporary licence (“ROTL”) had been refused. He complained that the procedure adopted by the prison was unfair, as he had not been given the full reasons for refusal in writing, thus preventing him from making informed submissions in his internal appeal and obtaining external advice. The Court (Fordham J) held that the Claimant’s procedural fairness entitlements had been violated. He resolved a number of factual disputes in the Claimant’s favour and quashed the Secretary of State’s decision, requiring him to consider the Claimant’s application afresh. Michael acted for the Claimant.