“Where the Secretary of State makes a reference for an offender's licence to be terminated under section 31A of the 1997 Act, the Secretary of State must serve any reports or evidence at the same time as making the reference to the Board. . . . (4) Where the Board receives a reference, a panel appointed under rule 5(5) must consider the application in accordance with section 31A(4) of the 1997 Act. (5) In considering the reference, the panel may— (a) make a decision on the papers, or (b) direct that the reference should be decided by a panel at a hearing. (6) Where a panel considers the reference on the papers or at a hearing, it must decide to— (a) terminate the offender's licence; (b) dismiss the reference, but amend the offender's licence in accordance with section 31(3) of the 1997 Act, or (c) dismiss the reference. (6A) Where the reference has been made for an offender who is in prison having been recalled under section 32 of the 1997 Act, the panel must consider the reference in accordance with section 31(4F) of that Act. (7) The decision under paragraph (6) or (6A) must— (a) include the reasons for that decision; and (b) be provided to the offender and the Secretary of State within 14 days. (7A) Any decision made by the panel under paragraphs (6) or (6A) is provisional, and becomes final if no application for reconsideration under rule 28 is received within the period specified by that rule.”
“Key Concerns (Section 4): • Injustice of the sentence: It has been repealed and is considered unfair. • Hopelessness: The lengthy periods of imprisonment and uncertainty over release has led to significant concerns for these individuals, particularly in relation to their mental health. • Self-harm and suicide: There is evidence of profound levels of psychological harm caused by IPP sentences, including evidence of high levels of self-harm and suicide rates. • System capacity: The context of prison capacity and prison-based barriers to IPP sentence progression.”
“Directions to oral hearing should only be required in exceptional circumstances.”
“15.3 The COM [Community Offender Manager] must contact the IPP-sentenced individual to discuss the termination referral and ascertain their views. They must then complete a Termination of IPP/DPP Licence report and disclose it to the individual who must be given seven calendar days to submit representations. The individual can write their own representations or seek legal advice and assistance with writing their representations and appoint a lawyer or other person to represent them (legal aid may be available for this work where the individual meets the criteria). . . . 15.6 The COM will provide a recommendation about the termination of an IPP licence within their report, rather than a professional opinion. The report must contain a clear recommendation about whether termination of the individual’s licence is supported, and a clear rationale for that decision giving thorough consideration also to any concerns raised by the victims and/or VLO. The report should be approved by the Region’s IPP Progression Panel or, where this has not been possible, directly by the Regional Head of Service. 15.7 Where the COM is not recommending terminating the licence they should include information about suspending supervision (if still in place) and any other changes to the licence that are considered necessary and proportionate.”
“16.18 Whilst rule 31(5) does permit a panel to direct an oral hearing, this should only be required in exceptional circumstances. Exceptional circumstances might include critical disputes of fact, vulnerabilities, or mental health or cognitive functioning which is particularly complex and relevant to risk. 16.19 When deciding if an oral hearing is required panels are advised to consider that paragraph 2(i) of the judgment in Osborn, giving the basis of the UK Supreme Court’s decision, says that fairness may require a hearing when a panel is “…determining an application for release, or for a transfer to open conditions…”
“Panels should continue to follow the current advice regarding Osborn until further notice: In paragraph 2(i) of the judgment in Osborn, giving the basis of the UK Supreme Court’s decision, it says that fairness may require a hearing when a panel is “…determining an application for release, or for a transfer to open conditions…”
“The panel found Mr Hanson’s own evidence, given in a thoughtful, if careful, manner, to be persuasive demonstrating a candid insight into his past, his present situation and what he sees as his future. The panel, whilst wary of possible impression management, found Mr Hanson’s evidence to be indicative of a genuine desire to desist from criminal behaviour. He gave a good account of himself and has insight into his risks. He has developed the necessary tools and strategies to manage them. The panel considered there was evidence of a genuine desire to desist from criminal behaviour. Of course, the challenge for him will be to actually do that and seek help, if necessary, should his risks become active, and so avoid making the mistakes he has made in the past. In the panel’s view Mr Hanson evidences a clear reduction in risk, though he will have to maintain his commitment to being open, honest, candid, and transparent to avoid misleading professionals with untruths whatever the circumstances.”
“demonstrated internal controls, for example, reflecting on negative associations, the circumstances which lead to the recall and wanting to build a positive rapport with those involved. To his credit, he has done this and has continued to engage with Probation. He recognises that previously; his perception of others was clouded as sometimes he felt ‘under attack’ by professionals and vulnerable so wasn’t open. His ability to reflect on those things has made him realise that he needs to be more open if he wants to get through his Licence period successfully. He has spoken about using tools and skills learnt from programmes, such as, the snowball effect and red flag scenarios. He has shown insight into looking up to the ’wrong people’ when he was young, and how this has changed as he has become older. It’s positive that throughout conversation, he understands that the circumstances which led to recall was around him dipping in engagement and accepting that he had started to associate with negative peers. We have spoke around being deceitful as this is something which has featured in previous engagement. My assessment is that this is a habit he got into from a young age, and when he was exploited by more sophisticated peers, being deceitful made him feel rewarded. He understands and recognises that as he matured that this has not helped him in any way shape or form. There has been no indication of Mr Hanson being deceitful since his release in 2024 and he has shared information around relationships (intimate) and when he has had any concerns around seeing negative associations. During the time I managed Mr Hanson in custody, I did notice a shift in his thinking and my assessment is that he has used the four-year recall in custody to reflect on his actions, his lifestyle and the goals that he has for the future.”
“The panel considered the risk assessments provided and the evidence of progress and stability since Mr Hanson was released in October 2024. The panel gives credit to Mr Hanson and the apparent shift in his attitude and approach towards openness and honesty with professionals. It would appear that his risk are reducing. However, there have been a number of concerns during the last twelve months and the panel is mindful of the slip into complacency that saw him placed in a highly risky situation, at the time of the first recall, resulting in Mr Hanson sustained serious injuries. In this context, the panel would wish to see a longer period of stability before the assessed risk levels were reduced and agreed with the risk assessments provided.”
“4.1 Mr Hanson’ case has been referred to the Parole Board for consideration of the termination of his IPP licence.Under the Victim and Prisoners Act 2024 , the starting point is a presumption of termination. 4.2 Mr Hanson was first released in January 2019 and his licence revoked 18 months later in June 2020 when he was arrested for an offence of affray. An incident at taken place at the ‘Manor House’ venue where a fight took place and there were reports of gunshots being heard and someone being stabbed. Mr Hanson had been stabbed but would not provide an account of how this came to be. Mr Hanson admitted that he had become complacent regarding his licence but denied that he had been “getting up to anything”. 4.3 Mr Hanson’s first review following his recall did not result in re-release. He was re-released in October 2024, following an oral hearing in August 2024. The panel of 2024 described a ‘finely balanced decision’ in directing his release. They determined that all directed licence conditions were both necessary and proportionate to managing his risks in the community. 4.4 Mr Hanson was released on1 October 2024 and is reported to have engaged well. The author of the termination report has known Mr Hanson for a number of years and identified a noticeable shift in his attitude and approach to the authorities. The panel gives him credit for this. 4.5 However, the panel is concerned that these changes are relatively recent and that further time is required to establish if they are truly embedded and resilient in the face of adversity and challenge in the community. Mr Hanson’s GPS trail monitoring was set to remain in place until April 2025 and the current stability is yet to be tested in the community once this monitoring has been lifted. The panel was mindful that Mr Hanson’s first recall came some 18 months after release when, Mr Hanson himself accepted, he had become complacent. Additionally, a number of services identified as important for the robustness of the risk management plan, have not been available. 4.6 Given the seriousness of Mr Hanson’s past offending, the relatively short time he has been in the community and the lack of some key aspects of the risk management plan, the panel was not confident that there was a “no more than minimal risk” that Mr Hanson might commit a further offence. The panel concluded that it was necessary for the protection of the public that his licence remained in place. 4.7 Representations requested the termination of the licence or an oral hearing. As detailed in the paragraphs above, the termination of licence is not considered appropriate at this time. In respect of an oral hearing, the panel did not find any reasons why one might be necessary the dossier containing all the evidence necessary upon which to determine Mr Hanson’s case. 4.8 In relation to the possibility of the suspension of supervision, for the same reasons provided in relation to the termination of licence, the panel considered it necessary, for the protection of the public, that supervision remained in place. 4.9 A number of licence conditions are to be removed as they are no longer applicable and therefore do not meet the test of necessary and proportionate.” (Emphasis added).
“Firstly, the MCA member should have found it necessary to hear oral evidence regarding the concerns “raised during the last twelve months and the slip into complacency that saw Mr Hanson placed in a highly risky situation, at the time of the first recall” since it is this led the MCA member to disagree with the assessment of the Probation Service. Mr Hanson has not been given the opportunity to present his case fairly, nor has he been given the opportunity to explain his commitment to leading a pro-social lifestyle. Secondly, Mr Hanson’s risk cannot be properly assessed without an oral hearing, given the difference in opinion between the MCA member and the Probation Service. Thirdly, Mr Hanson’s tariff expired 12 years ago so anxious scrutiny needs to be applied to his case. Fourthly, this is not a clear case for not having an oral hearing and, as explained in the Osborn, Booth & Reilly case, this means that it is “prudent” to allow an oral hearing.”
“The panel had noted that the termination of the IPP licence would leave the Applicant responsible for his own risk management. It was not unreasonable for it to consider it premature for him to be relied upon to do this given that he had only been back in the community for a short time. It was reasonable to conclude that further testing of the Applicant would be necessary prior to establishing that the IPP licence could come to an end.”
“47. The principal authority relied upon by the Applicant in his challenge that an oral hearing should have been directed is the Supreme Court in the case of Osborn (2013) UKSC61. This is the leading case on the topic and has been followed and applied in many subsequent cases. These decisions were concerned with cases where the offender was in prison seeking release or a progressive move to an open prison. The Applicant’s case is concerned with an offender serving an IPP sentence who has been released on licence and is seeking termination of his licence. That is a different situation from the case of Osborn. Osborn does not apply directly to licence termination cases. 48.There is of course an underlying principle of fairness and that may require an oral hearing in some cases. The panel in this case did not believe that fairness required that there should be an oral hearing and I am satisfied that it was fully justified in that conclusion. There had been an oral hearing in August 2024 and issues about the Applicant had been carefully considered at that review. This led to the Applicant’s release and the decision directing his release was reviewed by the panel considering termination of the IPP licence.”
“The principles to be derived from the authorities are (1) where an Act of Parliament confers an administrative power there is a presumption that it will be exercised in a manner which is fair in all the circumstances. (2) The standards of fairness are not immutable. They may change with the passage of time, both in the general and in their application to decisions of a particular type. (3) The principles of fairness are not to be applied by rote identically in every situation. What fairness demands is dependent on the context of the decision, and this is to be taken into account in all its aspects. (4) An essential feature of the context is the statute which creates the discretion, as regards both its language and the shape of the legal and administrative system within which the decision is taken. (5) Fairness will very often require that a person who may be adversely affected by the decision will have an opportunity to make representations on his own behalf either before the decision is taken with a view to producing a favourable result; or after it is taken, with a view to procuring its modification; or both. (6) Since the person affected usually cannot make worthwhile representations without knowing what factors may weigh against his interests fairness will very often require that he is informed of the gist of the case which he has to answer.”
“In order to comply with common law standards of procedural fairness, the board should hold an oral hearing before determining an application for release, or for a transfer to open conditions, whenever fairness to the prisoner requires such a hearing in the light of the facts of the case and the importance of what is at stake.”
“justice is intuitively understood to require a procedure which pays due respect to persons whose rights are significantly affected by decisions taken in the exercise of administrative or judicial functions. Respect entails that such persons ought to be able to participate in the procedure by which the decision is made, provided they have something to say which is relevant to the decision to be taken.”
“The board should also bear in mind that the purpose of holding an oral hearing is not only to assist it in its decision-making, but also to reflect the prisoners legitimate interest in being able to participate in a decision with important implications for him, where he has something useful to contribute. An oral hearing should therefore be allowed where it is maintained on tenable grounds that a face-to-face encounter with the board, or the questioning of those who have dealt with the prisoner, is necessary to enable him or his representatives to put their case effectively or to test the views of those who have dealt with him.”
“an oral hearing is required when facts which appear to be important are in dispute, or where a significant explanation or mitigation is advanced which needs to be heard orally if it is to be accepted.”
“An oral hearing is also necessary when for other reasons the board cannot otherwise properly or fairly make an independent assessment of risk, or of the means by which it should be managed and addressed. That is likely to be the position in cases where such an assessment may depend on the view formed by the board (including its members with expertise in psychology or psychiatry) of characteristics of the prisoner which can best be judged by seeing or questioning him in person, or where a psychological assessment produced by the Ministry of Justice is disputed on tenable grounds, or where the board may be materially assisted by hearing evidence, for example from a psychologist or psychiatrist.”
“There are currently no specific Parole Board policies for requiring an oral hearing for either IPP Generic Parole Process (GPP) reviews or IPP review of recalls and panels have flexibility to decide cases on their individual merits in line with the relevant pieces of guidance. Member Case Assessment (MCA) panels can conclude any IPP case on the papers where there is sufficient information to make a decision and fairness does not require an oral hearing. An oral hearing is not required unless the circumstances merit exploring oral evidence from witnesses or meet other criteria as set out in the Supreme Court’s judgment in Osborn, Booth & Reilly (OBR).”