“Trilogy of Documents”
“haven’t addressed risk factors” “lack of insight into offending”
“I will generate copies of the relevant paperwork, and call you up to OMU early next week to collect it”
“[POM] Smith cannot now specifically recall whether this paperwork was handed to the Claimant at the meeting on 16 June [2021]”
“Haven’t addressed risk factors” and “Lack of insight into offending”
“On 16/6/21 I received news from my Offender Supervisor Carole Smith and Sean Carroll that Gov Woodburn had refused me all ROTLs”; and that “Sean explained that it was for the following two reasons”, followed by the same two quotations. If the Claimant had been given the complete reasons, in writing, in the form of the ROTL Decision Notice (or even in the form of the Manuscript Version in the ROTL Risk Assessment), he would not have been making his appeal by reference to two direct quotations from what had been “read out”, and choosing not to quote from – indeed to say nothing about – the reasons document itself with its fuller reasoning. vi) The Claimant’s contemporaneous notes of the meeting show that POM Smith and SPO Carroll had in mind the “Board Assessment”, which (on8 June 2021 ) ADG Woodburn had completed by writing the Manuscript Version of the reasons. They plainly had that in mind because the notes record that the Claimant was advised to request that documentation by issuing a COMP1. When he did so (17 June 2021 ), he referred to that advice. When he wrote to his solicitors (16 June 2021 ), he also referred to the advice. I agree with Mr Pritchard that it would have been odd – given that POM Smith and SPO Carroll were so obviously being helpful to the Claimant so far as his entitlements and documents were concerned – to be holding in their hands at the meeting the ROTL Decision Notice and not to have handed it to the Claimant, given what it said on its face about his entitlement to be given a copy. There is another explanation which makes far more sense. Both Ms Fisher and DG Bailey have stated in their Witness Statements that “ROTL Board Assessment” was understood within the prison as meaning the completed Trilogy of Documents. The Manuscript version of the reasons complete the ROTL Risk Assessment. If at the meeting on16 June 2021 POM Smith and SPO Carroll had the ROTL Risk Assessment, completed on8 June 2021 , they would have the Manuscript Version of the reasons. If SPO Carroll was reading from that Manuscript Version, he would not have had the visual prompt of the Claimant’s entitlement (“A copy of this form must go to the offender”). That note does not appear on the Manuscript Version. Further, to hand over the Manuscript Version of the reasons would have meant detaching it from the composite Trilogy of Documents of which it was the third element. POM Smith and SPO Carroll would not have handed over the entire Trilogy of Documents, since they thought the Claimant had to request this by COMP1 from DG Bailey, as they advised. vii) The explanation which makes most sense of all of the contemporaneous documents, and of all of the known actions which took place at the time and subsequently, is that the ROTL Decision Notice was not handed to the Claimant at the meeting. viii) The Claimant’s letter to his solicitors (16 June 2021 ) is revealing for another reason. It records that SPO Carroll told the Claimant that he should raise a COMP1 Complaint “requesting a copy of the ROTL Board Assessment”, adding that SPO Carroll had “said I should do this as I am not entitled to one ordinarily”
“…It has been urged on me that even if there were defects in the procedure they would have made no difference to the outcome. This is an argument that is very rarely accepted by the courts, for obvious reasons. It must be in the very plainest of cases, and only in such cases, where one can say that the breach could have made no difference…” 53. It is recognised in the authorities that the court has to caution itself against the suggestion that no prejudice has been caused to a claimant because the flawed decision would inevitably have been the same. For example, in R v Ealing Magistrates Court, ex p Fanneran (1996) 160 JP 409, a case concerning theDangerous Dogs Act 1991 , Staughton LJ said: “The notion that when the rules of natural justice have not been observed one can still uphold the result because it would not have made any difference, is to be treated with great caution. Down that slippery slope lies the way to dictatorship. On the other hand, if it is a case where it demonstrable beyond doubt that it would have made no difference, the court may, if it thinks fit, uphold a conviction if natural justice had not been done.…”
“Natural justice is not always or entirely about the fact or substance of fairness. It … also has something to do with the appearance of fairness. In the hallowed phrase, justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done.”
“I note that you maintain your innocence and that this is not a bar to you progressing”
“The parole board have described the situation with you as ‘an impasse’ and they did not find your account or denial of your offending to be credible. I would suggest that if you are to make significant progress towards release, you will need to reflect very carefully on your situation and consider further how you can demonstrate that the risk you pose to the public has reduced.”
“The panel accept that denial is not a bar to progression or release, although remain concerned that you do not identify that you had any difficulties in your life at the time you were offending and as such have not been able to evidence how your strengths and protective factors that might contribute to desistance from offending have developed.”
“ROTL … will only be granted after a full risk assessment showing that it is safe for you to be trusted in the community”