The claimant challenged the decision not to be reclassified to Category D. He was a convicted sex offender, but maintained his innocence. The defendant said this did not demonstrate a reduction in risk, since he was not eligible to participate in sex offender programs.
Held: The challenge failed. Though the inability to attend the offenders’ course was important, the governor had taken account of the other factors. ‘Denial and a consequent inability to attend courses are relevant only to the extent that it is usually fundamental to demonstrating reduction in risk that a sex offender accepts responsibility for what has happened in the past and takes concrete steps to address his future conduct. But if he will do neither, he puts himself in a situation in which it is difficult, indeed practically impossible, for him to obtain a downward recategorisation.’ However, ‘there is . . nothing to be derived from good behaviour by itself. It is material only in so far as it shows a relevant change of attitude, and that is not something which can be gauged from the (praiseworthy) behaviour of the claimant in this case.’
Langan QC J
[2010] EWHC 1277 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – 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 . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2021; Ref: scu.416189