“The Category A Committee is concerned with the risks posed to the public by a prisoner who escapes, something which may occur unexpectedly, at any time. If he escapes, and while he remains at large, the prisoner is uncontrolled and unsupervised, temporarily, at least, untraceable, on the run, subject therefore to the inevitable increased stresses on an individual who, by definition, has not yet satisfied the DLP that it would be safe for him to be released on licence.”
“…it can be seen that all the programmes that are provided by the prison service are covered in the treatment that is carried out on the unit but in greater depth, for a longer period of intervention and, most importantly, using an individual formulation so that the EXACT factors that are associated with offending for each individual are directly assessed. All changes made are monitored on a daily basis by the large number of staff on the unit, clinical and operational, who work closely with the prisoners, know formulation and closely observe behaviour. Hence it is very difficult for prisoners on the unit to feign change as they are so frequently observed in every aspect of daily living, in groups, at work, in individual sessions and in their relationships and everyday interactions with males and females”
“All the previous targets from the last board have been achieved, because Mr Storm has engaged in therapy, he stated that his over familiar flirtatious and interpersonal style had always been part of him and this will be hard to change.”
“Has the prisoner demonstrated any evidence that his/her risk of serious reoffending has reduced? Please give specific details and include implications for future treatment and progress”
“Fens unit treatment will cease in April 2010. It is anticipated at this stage he will require ongoing support to maintain any changes he has made and to continue to address his interpersonal style rather than referral to any existing offending behaviour programmes that his PCL-R would not preclude him from participating in. [He] has highlighted that he wishes to progress to HMP Grendon in order to be offered a supportive environment in which he can continue to receive feedback about his own presentation whilst also contributing to the treatment of others but recognises this is not achievable if his security status continues to be maintained as Category A. If the board are unable to consider him suitable for Category B status at this time, it would be immensely helpful for [Mr Storm] to receive explicit feedback about what he needs to address in order to enhance his chances of meeting criteria at his next Category A board.”
“He began offence focussed therapy in April 2008 and this is also going well, but not due for completion until 2010. The overall DSPD assessment is however that his work on such issues as his interaction with others, feelings of vulnerability and childhood sexual abuse are sufficient to indicate significant risk reduction”
“The Director recognised Mr Storm’s generally acceptable behaviour and also his efforts to address his risk through mainstream programmes in the DSPD regime. He noted Mr Storm had achieved definite progress in terms of his insight into his behaviours and attitudes. The Director also noted Mr Storm had now started offence-focussed work that should both consolidate Mr Storm’s previous progress and enable him to apply new skills directly to the causes of his violent offending. The Director noted the [LAP]’s recommendation for Mr Storm’s downgrading on the basis of the progress which he had achieved so far. He considered however that current offence-focussed work should be continued before an accurate assessment could be made of a significant reduction in Mr Storm’s risk. The Director noted the highly violent nature of Mr Storm’s present offence and his previous history of physical and sexual violence. He considered that Mr Storm’s offending showed he would pose a high level of potential dangerousness if unlawfully at large, and that there must be clear evidence of a significant reduction in this risk before his downgrading could be approved. The Director accepted that Mr Storm was taking appropriate steps to reduce his risk, but considered that evidence of significant risk reduction was not yet available. On that basis the Director considered Mr Storm should remain in category A at this time.”
“Those words apply a fortiori when what is sought to be challenged is not really a disciplinary decision with limited significance, but a decision which has a direct impact on the date of a prisoner’s ultimate release.”
“In summary, the DLP is concerned with the protection of the public following a supervised conditional release of the prisoner, whereas the Category A Committee or review team concentrate on the risks to the public posed by an escape. This is a difference of substance. They address the same broad issue – public safety – but they are resolving a different problem. There is no statutory, or any other basis, for concluding that one decision-making body has priority over the other”
“31. Apart from the disquieting impression that the two decision making bodies concerned with this appellant were not working with the same material, the risk highlighted by this appeal is circularity. The post tariff discretionary life prisoner may be trapped in an unending process. This risk is mitigated by recognising that there are exceptional cases in which (subject to PII issues), the material available to the review team, in particular the reports on him, rather than their gist, should be disclosed and the prisoner permitted an oral hearing. The successful operation of this system depends on the review team, and since January 2001, the Head of the Category A review team, correctly identifying the case or cases which should be regarded as exceptional. 32. Mr Owen submitted that the decision that this was an ordinary or normal rather than an exceptional case was wrong. Unlike Harrison J., we agree that the review team failed to recognise the special circumstances of this case. At the risk of repetition, the appellant was a post tariff life sentence prisoner. An open hearing before the DLP, which had resulted in conclusions favourable to him, was followed by a closed hearing before the review team. On the basis of reports which had not been available to the DLP or been made available to the appellant or his legal advisers, the review team reached conclusions adverse to him which were seriously damaging to his prospects of release. In rejecting the application for an oral hearing, the review team misdirected itself by elevating the theory of the DLP’S statutory jurisdiction disproportionately above the practical realities, and over emphasising the differences between its own functions and those of the DLP, without sufficiently recognising the link between them. The likely recommendation of the review team was foreshadowed by the ‘gist’ document. Once notice of the DLP’s decision had been received, the review team should have recognised an obvious prospect of a major inconsistency between their respective conclusions. An oral hearing would have enabled the reasons for the contradictory views to be examined on behalf of the appellant and for the contents of any adverse reports to be directly addressed. In the final analysis the review team would, of course, have reached its own decision, but an oral hearing, and proper disclosure, would have ensured that the decision was the result of a better informed process, and the conclusions, and the reasons for them, would then have been received with correspondingly greater confidence.”
“First, he is a Category A prisoner. Secondly, his tariff has expired. Both are significant because their combination means that delay in moving from Category A conditions is highly likely to delay his eventual release. Liberty is obviously affected. Since the consequences of an adverse Category A decision are so serious, these two factors point in the direction of a particularly high standard of procedural fairness. 23. Next, on two occasions the local prison has recommended that the claimant should be recategorised. As a consequence, there is an inconsistency between, on the one hand, the approach of the local prison and, on the other hand, that of the Director of High Security Prisons. I do not accept the claimant's submission that this results in an impasse. The matter is also different from that considered in the Williams decision, since the recommendation of a local prison on categorisation is not the same as a decision of the Parole Board. Nonetheless, this inconsistency supports the case for an oral hearing to explore it in greater depth. At the end of the day there may be no inconsistency but simply a difference of opinion, and for very good reasons, but it is as well that the matter be explored at an oral hearing. 24. A closely related point is that the approach of the Category A Review Team may well benefit from the closer examination which an oral hearing could provide. After all, the local prison has responsibility for the care of the claimant and its views on risk and its management are matters which might be better tested by way of an oral hearing. Finally, the claimant is in a Protected Witness Unit. That bears on various factors such as risk and his ability to undertake work which could have an impact on a reduction in that risk. An oral hearing may better explore the special factors appertaining to the claimant's location in the unit. 25. In my judgment, therefore, the cumulative effect of these five factors tip the balance in favour of an oral hearing. If it were necessary to do so in terms of Williams I would categorise these as exceptional circumstances. In any event, my conclusion is that as a matter of principle an oral hearing is demanded. The principle of procedural fairness requires a focus on the context of the case, taking into account the nature of the decision and its consequences and the interests at stake. In this case my view is that the combination of the five factors point firmly in favour of an oral hearing.”
“In my judgment the number of special factors in this case are such that it is not inconsistent with an existing authority.”
“Mr Patel urges us to hear the appeal nevertheless because he maintains there is a point of principle at stake. Nevertheless, the precise facts are always going to be very important in a case of this kind and the important question of when an oral hearing should be required in a case like this should in our view be decided in a case where the facts really matter, not in a case where the facts have moved on, and we accept Mr Southey’s submission that it would be in those circumstances disproportionate for this court to decide questions which have now become academic in the light of subsequent events. We will therefore make an order declining to hear this appeal on the basis that it is academic, and we also record Mr Southey’s acceptance on instructions that it would be difficult to say that the case is one of any general application because of the five specific factors on which Mr Justice Cranston relied, and the decision should certainly not be taken as a precedent for any wider concept of any oral hearing than the judge ordered in the particular circumstances of this case. So in those circumstances, as I say, we will declare that the appeal is academic and we will not proceed further on it.”