Darren Hewitson, R (on the application of) v Parole Board for England and Wales [2026] EWHC 2219 (Admin)

“2.1. Mr Hewitson’s last Parole Board review took place by oral hearing on 27 June 2024. Since that time there have been mixed reports about his engagement with staff, other prisoners, and the regime. An Intelligence Summary Report dated 29 September 2025 outlines eleven entries between September 2024 and June 2025; eight of which are coded B21 or A11 which the panel understands to indicate moderate to high levels of reliability. Most of these relate to his hostility and threats towards others and/or concerns that his risk of harm to others or himself is increasing. He is reported to have received a positive MDT result in March 2025 which indicated use of Subutex. The security entries indicate that Mr Hewitson, who was at HMP Dumfries at the time, was very unhappy there. … 2.10. The current panel recognises that, importantly, the frequency of violence towards others seems to have reduced over the last ten or fifteen years. It has been suggested that Mr Hewitson is now more likely to use serious self-harm as a coping response to triggers. Unfortunately, Mr Hewitson’s custodial behaviour demonstrates that there is some way yet to go in developing adaptive and protective strategies to manage the risk factors identified. The panel also recognises that the prison setting may be serving to reinforce and repeatedly trigger Mr Hewitson’s negative beliefs and mistrust of others, despite any efforts made by the staff involved in his case. It is unclear whether secure settings with a more therapeutic and trauma-responsive approach than a mainstream prison have been seriously considered for or by him. … 3.1. Mr Hewitson is serving three concurrent indeterminate sentences for public protection. The panel is of the understanding that the most recent tariff expiry date passed in February 2015. Mr Hewitson is assessed by OASys as presenting a medium-low likelihood of committing further offences. The most recent psychological risk assessment (PRA, K. Manning, October 2023) assessed him as presenting a high risk of causing serious harm. It was also highlighted in the PRA that Mr Hewitson’s ‘psychological circumstances tend to change very quickly and unpredictably’. Ineffective cognitive processing and emotional instability are ongoing factors linked to risk of harm to others, as well as himself. Ms Manning opined that risk is likely to increase and become more imminent should Mr Hewitson be released from prison. Dr Manning endorsed the view of her colleague Dr Brown who had, earlier in 2023, completed her own PRA with regard to Mr Hewitson and concluded that community release ‘could result in unpredictable acts of violence towards random individuals onto whom he may displace his feelings’. The panel considers that these assessments remain relevant due to the limited changes in Mr Hewitson’s overall circumstances since they were undertaken. 3.2. In their most recent report (24/06/25), the COM states that Mr Hewitson ‘should not be released and his risk is not manageable in the community. Mr Hewitson has maintained poor progression through custody and any release at this stage would be unmanageable’. The COM also makes the observation that, whilst Mr Hewitson would prefer to remain in the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) due to proximity to his family who live in the Edinburgh area, transferring to a prison in England would likely afford him greater access to more therapeutic settings.”

“5. Mr Hewitson has been unrepresented until very recently. He is currently located at HMP Edinburgh. It has not yet been possible for detailed instructions to be taken by his new legal representative and his parole dossier was only received on 9 February 2026. These representations have been prepared at short notice to ensure that they are submitted in advance of the deadline for requesting an oral hearing. ... 8. It is submitted on Mr Hewitson's behalf that his risk can be managed in the community and it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public from the risk of serious harm that he remains confined to custody; and there is a no more than a minimal risk that he would commit a further offence that could cause serious harm to the public if he were released. 9. In light of his application for release, the principles of fairness and what is at stake for Mr Hewitson and the need for anxious scrutiny of continued detention for post-tariff IPP prisoners, it is requested that directions are made for this review to proceed to an oral hearing. It is submitted that in compliance with the principles set out in Osborn, Booth and Reilly [2013] UKSC 61 (and reiterated in an oral hearing is required in this case.” ... Representations 19. These submissions request that an oral hearing is directed for Mr Hewiston’s case. 20. Mr Hewitson has not had the benefit of any legal advice in connection with this current review. His previous parole hearing was concluded on the papers (341). Mr Hewitson did not attend earlier oral hearings listed for that review and the Panel’s decision letter notes the significant concerns which staff had at the time concerning his mental health (339). 21. It has not been possible in the very short period of time since his current representative has been instructed to take detailed instructions. However, it is evident that Mr Hewitson disputes several of the security entries in his dossier, that he is highly distressed by his current location at HMP Edinburgh, that he does not have any meaningful progression pathway and that he is in despair. 22. It does not appear that any kind of IPP Progression Panel has been conducted for Mr Hewitson. This is not acceptable. Mr Hewitson is serving IPP sentences. The fact that he is located in Scotland does not obviate the need for HMPPS, in conjunction with the Scottish Prison Service, to ensure that a meaningful IPP Progression Panel is facilitated, ideally with input from Mr Hewitson’s legal representative as well as Mr Hewitson himself. 23. It is maintained on his behalf that, whilst in his current situation, he poses a significant risk to himself, having made several self-harm and suicide attempts, the risk that he poses to others has reduce significantly. This is alluded to in the decision letter of 19 January 2026: 2.10. The current panel recognises that, importantly, the frequency of violence towards others seems to have reduced over the last ten or fifteen years. It has been suggested that Mr Hewitson is now more likely to use serious self-harm as a coping response to triggers. Unfortunately, Mr Hewitson’s custodial behaviour demonstrates that there is some way yet to go in developing adaptive and protective strategies to manage the risk factors identified. The panel also recognises that the prison setting may be serving to reinforce and repeatedly trigger Mr Hewitson’s negative beliefs and mistrust of others, despite any efforts made by the staff involved in his case. It is unclear whether secure settings with a more therapeutic and trauma-responsive approach than a mainstream prison have been seriously considered for or by him. 24. It is important that the Panel conducts its own comprehensive risk assessment, and explores the means by which any residual risk can be managed. His legal representatives intend to commission an independent psychological risk assessment to help inform this process. If the Panel conclude after an oral hearing that he does not meet the release test, their terms of reference still require consideration of open conditions and fair assessment of any continuing areas of risk that need to be addressed. This will require an oral hearing at which he can be represented and at which Mr Hewitson can, with appropriate support and reasonable adjustments, give oral evidence.”

“We refer to the provisional decision of your parole review recently issued by a single member panel. As set out in the decision, you were allowed 28 days in which to consider whether to accept the decision or request an oral hearing. We confirm that you have requested an oral hearing via legal representations. Your legal representative had not been able to take your full instructions. However, the basis for this request relied heavily on the Osborn judgement, in that an oral hearing was necessary in the interests of fairness. An oral hearing is not required in every case. In your case there has been an absence of significant change since your last review, or since previous Psychological Risk Assessments were completed. The duty member concluded, on the basis of all of the material in the dossier and the information provided, that there is no reason to believe that oral evidence would assist in providing information that might mitigate the apparent level of risk presented, or would enable clarification of any points materially relevant to the assessment of risk, which are already clearly set out in the information supplied. The representations submitted have been considered and the request has been refused for the reasons stated above. 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”

"28. Duty to release certain life prisoners (lA)This section applies to a life prisoner in respect of whom a minimum term order has been made; and any reference in this section to the relevant part of such a prisoner's sentence is a reference to the part of the sentence specified in the order. [ ... ] (5) As soon as- (a) a life prisoner to whom this section applies has served the relevant part of his sentence; and (b) the Parole Board has directed his release under this section, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to release him on licence. (6) The Parole Board shall not give a direction under subsection (5) above with respect to a life prisoner to whom this section applies unless- (a) the Secretary of State has referred the prisoner's case to the Board; and (b) the Board is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined. [ ... ] (7) A life prisoner to whom this section applies may require the Secretary of State to refer his case to the Parole Board at any time- (a) after he has served the relevant part of his sentence; and (b) where there has been a previous reference of his case to the Board, after the end of the period of two years beginning with the disposal of that reference; and [ ... ] and in this subsection "previous reference" means a reference under subsection (6) above or section 32(4) below." 20. By section 239(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003: "

"19. Consideration on the papers (1) Where a panel is appointed under rule 5(1) to consider the release of a prisoner, the panel must decide on the papers either that- (a) the prisoner is suitable for release; (b) the prisoner is unsuitable for release, or (c) the case should be directed to an oral hearing. [ ... ] (6) Any decision made under paragraph (l)(b) is provisional. 20. Procedure after a provisional decision on the papers (1) Where a panel appointed under rule 5(1) has made a decision that a prisoner is unsuitable for release under rule 19(1)(b), the prisoner may apply in writing for a panel at an oral hearing to determine the case. (2) A prisoner who makes an application under paragraph (1) must serve the application, together with reasons for making an application, on the Board and the Secretary of State, within 28 days of the provision of the written record under rule 19(8). [ ... ] (5) If an application is served in accordance with paragraph (2), the decision about whether the case should be determined at an oral hearing must be taken by a member of the Board who- (a) is a duty member, and (b) was not part of the constituted panel appointed under rule 5(1) who made the provisional decision. (6) If the decision taken under paragraph (5) is that the case should not be determined at an oral hearing, a provisional decision under rule 19(1)(b)- (a) remains provisional if it is eligible for reconsideration under rule 28 and becomes final if no application for reconsideration is received within the period specified by that rule [ ... ]" 22. By Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights ("

"Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful." 23. In Osborn (supra) and in Re Reilly [2013] UKSC 61, the leading authority on oral hearings in parole reviews, the Supreme Court had occasion to consider determinate sentence prisoners, recalled prisoners and also post-tariff lifers in the position of Mr Somers. Lord Reed, with whom the other Justices agreed, drew some general conclusions at the start of his judgment. The passages which follow are highly material to the Board's consideration in the present case and indeed they should form the backbone of any consideration as to affording an oral hearing where release or transfer to open conditions is in issue. 24. Lord Reed said the following at paragraph [2]: "(i) 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. By doing so the board will also fulfil its duty under section (1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 to act compatibly with article 5(4) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, in circumstances where that article is engaged. (ii) It is impossible to define exhaustively the circumstances in which an oral hearing will be necessary, but such circumstances will often include the following: (a) Where facts which appear to the board to be important are in dispute, or where a significant explanation or mitigation is advanced which needs to be heard orally in order fairly to determine its credibility. The board should guard against any tendency to underestimate the importance of issues of fact which may be disputed or open to explanation or mitigation. (b) Where 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 upon 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. Cases concerning prisoners who have spent many years in custody are likely to fall into the first of these categories. (c) 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 in order to enable him or his representatives to put their case effectively or to test the views of those who have dealt with him. (d) Where, in the light of the representations made by or on behalf of the prisoner, it would be unfair for a "paper" decision made by a single member panel of the board to become final without allowing an oral hearing: for example, if the representations raise issues which place in serious question anything in the paper decision which may in practice have a significant impact on the prisoner's future management in prison or on future reviews. (iii) In order to act fairly, the board should consider whether its independent assessment of risk, and of the means by which it should be managed and addressed, may benefit from the closer examination which an oral hearing can provide. (iv) 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 prisoner's legitimate interest in being able to participate in a decision with important implications for him, where he has something useful to contribute. (v) The question whether fairness requires a prisoner to be given an oral hearing is different from the question whether he has a particular likelihood of being released or transferred to open conditions, and cannot be answered by assessing that likelihood. (vi) … When dealing with cases concerning post-tariff indeterminate sentence prisoners, it should scrutinise ever more anxiously whether the level of risk is unacceptable, the longer the time the prisoner has spent in prison following the expiry of his tariff. (vii) The board must be, and appear to be, independent and impartial. It should not be predisposed to favour the official account of events, or official assessments of risk, over the case advanced by the prisoner. ... (ix) The board's decision, for the purposes of this guidance, is not confined to its determination of whether or not to recommend the prisoner's release or transfer to open conditions, but includes any other aspects of its decision (such as comments or advice in relation to the prisoner's treatment needs or the offending behaviour work which is required) which will in practice have a significant impact on his management in prison or on future reviews.

"70. This aspect of fairness in decision-making has practical consequences of the kind to which Lord Hoffmann referred. Courts have recognised what Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers described as "the feelings of resentment that will be aroused if a party to legal proceedings is placed in a position where it is impossible for him to influence the result"

"Where, as here, there may be issues of mental health problems fairness usually requires the grant of an oral hearing (see for example Hussain v UK [1996] 22 EHRR 1 ). The extent to which the presentation of mental health issues on 16 January 2020 was down to drug abuse is best explored at an oral hearing and are important issues and facts that require clarification. Mr Lawrence's account of what happened that day has not yet been sought."