The applicants for judicial review had each been convicted and sentenced for sex offences. Each maintained his innocence, and now complained that that fact had prejudiced decisions as to early release on parole and as to their categorisation.
Held: The court identified four issues (1) The Parole Board must assume the prisoner’s guilt of the offence. (2) The Board’s first duty is to assess the risk to the public of re-offending (3) It is unlawful for the Board to deny a recommendation for parole on the ground only that the prisoner continues to deny his guilt. (4) In some cases, particularly of serious persistent violent or sexual crime, a continued denial of guilt will almost inevitably mean that the risk posed by the prisoner remains high. The Board is then entitled (perhaps obliged) to deny a recommendation. As to the cases of refusing re-categorisation, these touched on matters where a very clear case would have to be established before a review would be given. Review was denied.
 EWHC Admin 324
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Martin Lillycrop; Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Ronald George Powell; Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Andrew Scott Admn 27-Nov-1996
A continued denial of guilt alone is not sufficient to deny prisoner parole. ‘We consider that the Parole Board must approach its consideration of any application for parole on the basis that the Applicant has committed the offences of which he has . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Governor of Frankland Prison Ex Parte Zulfikar (1) QBD 26-Jul-1995
An admission of guilt by a prisoner is not a pre-requisite for granting him parole, but it is a question of the circumstances of each case. A prisoner denied his guilt of the offence of arson with intent to endanger life. The Parole Board declined . .
Cited – Regina v Parole Board ex parte Zulfikar CA 28-Apr-1997
The applicant appealed refusal of leave to apply for judicial review of a refusal of parole. He denied his guilt of the offence, and complained it had improperly affected the decision.
Held: Since the decision appealed, the court had, in . .
Cited – Potter and Others, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another Admn 30-Nov-2001
Four prisoners challenged the refusal to grant them enhanced status under the prison’s Incentives and Earned Privileges Scheme. Each maintained a denial of guilt and so was not eligible for a treatment programme.
Held: The applications failed. . .
Cited – Cannan v HMP Full Sutton Admn 29-Jun-2009
The prisoner challenged his re-assessment for a status of ‘standard’ within a scheme operated by the prison allocating privileges according to behaviour. He maintained denial of guilt for the offences for which had been convicted and so was unable . .
Cited – Roberts, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 12-Mar-2004
The claimant complained at a decision not to reduce his Category A status to that of a category B prisoner. He continued to maintain his innocence of the murders for which he had been convicted. He was therefore ineligible to take part in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Prisons, Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.137269