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

In 1993 the Claimant was convicted in California of murder. He was sentenced to 25 years to life, with no eligibility for parole for 15 years. In 2012 he was transferred to this jurisdiction pursuant to the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984. In 2014 his minimum term was set at 17 years and 285 days. He was released on licence in August 2017 but recalled in February 2019 and convicted of several offences for which he received a determinate sentence. In July 2023 the board after an oral hearing directed his release on life licence, noting a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder and a history of self-harm and suicidal ideation. That release took place in September 2023.

In January 2024 he was arrested for supply of class A drugs and tested positive for drug use. The police took the view that he may be psychotic (he had a previous psychotic episode the previous November) and arranged for an assessment under the Mental Health Act 1983. That indicated that he was floridly psychotic and he was detained under section 2 of the 1983 Act from January until his discharge on 6 February 2024. He received home treatment for his mental health between 3 and 8 May 2024. In that month he was arrested for further drug offences. The Secretary of State revoked his licence, and he was returned to custody.

On 31 May 2024 a Part B Post Recall Risk Management Report was completed by the claimant’s community offender manager, which recommended that he remain in custody to stabilise his mental health. His probation officer assessed that it was likely that there had been a level of coercion in respect of the offences, as he claimed. He accepts that he was in possession of the drugs but denies intent to supply. The report included a risk management plan to manage the risk on licence. In June 2024 the Secretary of State referred his case to the board under s 32(1) of the Crime (Sentence) Act 1997 for consideration as to his release or transfer to open conditions.

In June 2024 his solicitors requested an oral hearing so that he could seek his release, emphasising that he had recently been sectioned, he had been under pressure to possess the drugs and had been exploited due to his vulnerability. It was indicated that he was receiving appropriate medication in the prison healthcare unit and that his condition was stable.

In July 2024 a panel member of the board issued an assessment that there was evidence lacking in respect of the recent investigation into drug offences and as to the claimant’s mental health and that the case should be returned to a specialist psychiatrist member. Directions were given for the filing of (a) an up-to-date police report, (b) the claimant’s discharge summary from the Mental Health Act 1983, (c) a report from the mental health team in custody regarding his presentation since returning to custody, (d) an up-to-date report from the claimant.

The same month the police notified the board that the investigation into the drug offences was ongoing and would take 12 to 16 weeks from the end of May 2024. The following month they provided a report which included a letter from the claimant, an occurrence details log, and witness statements from eight police officers. In the claimant’s letter he asked that ‘bad people’ who made him ‘do it’ were not informed as they would ‘kill him’, and went on to set out his vulnerabilities and difficulties with his mental health.The occurrence detail log indicated that he had not been interviewed on grounds of his mental health. The report acknowledged that the claimant may begetting used by people he considers friends in order to sell drugs.

On 6 October 2024 another panel member adjourned the review for eight weeks, to allow a further update from the police and further legal representations, and in doing so stated that the boardcannot usurp the role of the criminal courts in making determinations of fact around the criminal matters, although the guidance was also noted. The following month the police indicated that a charging decision was likely within eight to ten weeks, and the claimant’s solicitors asked the board for an adjournment for the charging decision to be made or to direct an oral hearing for the review.

On 4 December 2024 the same panel member issued a decision under rule 19 refusing to direct release or to direct an oral hearing, which included the following passage:

“The Panel has considered the case against the principles set out in the Supreme Court judgment relating to Osborn, Booth & Reilly [2013] UKSC 61, and does not find that there are any reasons for an oral hearing. The Panel considered whether an oral hearing would assist in assessing the risk posed and concluded that in this case it would not. The Panel also considered Mr Anditon’s legitimate interest in participating in the process and whether there were tenable grounds to suggest that an oral hearing was necessary to allow him to effectively put his case. The Panel concluded it was not. Therefore, the review will proceed based on the papers.”

On 19 December 2024 the claimant’s solicitors made an application under rule 20 for an oral hearing, which emphasised his vulnerabilities and his mental health issues. The application was refused on the same day, on this basis:

“An oral hearing is not required in all cases. In your case you remain under investigation for allegations of drug supply. It is not a matter for the Parole Board as to how long the Police may take to investigate. However, the outcome of the investigation may be relevant to the risk assessment and therefore an oral hearing at this stage would be premature…The paper decision is therefore final, and your current review is now concluded in accordance with the Parole Board Rules – not applicable for reconsideration eligible cases.”