AC-2025-CDF-000035 - [2025] EWHC 2099 (Admin)

Fecha: 08-Ago-2025

Conclusions

Discussion and conclusion

19.

In my judgment, as Mr Withers submits, in the present case there are several factors which strongly point to the need for an oral hearing in order to ensure fairness. These include:

On his arrest in January 2024 the claimant was assessed as floridly psychotic and sectioned. The police did not interview him because of his mental health issues.

ii)

Before his arrest in May 2024 he was receiving home treatment for mental health issues.

iii)

The risk management report in May 2024 included a reference by the probation officer that there was likely to have been a level of coercion in relation the drug offences. He does not deny possession, but the issue is intent to supply, which is likely to be informed by his mental health issues and level of coercion.

iv)

In July 2024 the panel member indicated that evidence was lacking in respect of the investigation into the drug offences and the claimant’s mental health. Referral to a specialist psychiatrist member was directed. It does not appear that this was done, for reasons which remain unclear.

As at the date of the refusal, in December 2024, a charging decision had yet to be made, although his first arrest had taken place some 11 months earlier.

vi)

The issue of intent, and/or of level of coercion, in relation to the drug offences, may well be informed by psychiatric evidence and/or expertise of the board.

vii)

As a post tariff prisoner, the claimant’s case was, at the least, deserving of anxious scrutiny.

20.

The claimant’s mental health issues do not appear to figure largely in the decision that an oral hearing was unnecessary. There was a brief reference to the fact of his being sectioned, but the focus was very much upon the outstanding investigations. In my judgment, therefore the decision to refuse an oral hearing should be quashed and a declaration granted that that decision was unfair. The board should be directed to hold an oral hearing. The claimant’s annual review commenced in June 2025 but it may take some weeks for a decision to be made on that review as to whether to hold an oral hearing. The claimant’s trial in relation to the drug offences is now listed in November 2025. His case has recently been referred to the National Crime Agency to ascertain whether he is a victim of modern slavery. That could take months to decide and may jeopardise the trial date.

21.

Mr Withers helpfully indicated that he would submit a draft order, which he has now done, and I am content to approve the order.