Pearce & Anor, R (on the application of) v Parole Board of England and Wales [2023] UKSC 13 (05 April 2023)
Citation:Pearce & Anor, R (on the application of) v Parole Board of England and Wales [2023] UKSC 13 (05 April 2023)
Rule of thumb:If a person has been accused of committing crimes, but the Police deemed that there was not evidence beyond reasonable doubt about the crime to prosecute the person, can the parole board take this evidence into account when deciding whether to grant/refuse early-release of the prisoner? If the parole board determine at a hearing that on the balance of probabilities a person committed a crime, then they can take this into account when deciding whether a prisoner applies for early release, even if the prisoner was never prosecuted for this – this evidence is not exempt from consideration because it never reached the standard of being beyond reasonable doubt.
Background facts:This was a landmark case in parole hearings release. The facts were that an inmate was successfully convicted of of sexual assault, and given a sentence for this alone, with the Court stating that half-way through then early-release & parole could be applied for. The parole board refused to release this inmate at the half-way point, and the board’s reason for this was they believed on the balance of probabilities that this inmate had also committed other sexual assaults, even though there was not a sufficient body of evidence to prove these beyond reasonable doubt to reach the level where the Prosecution believed that they could reach the degree of certainty needed to prosecute the inmate for them. The Parole Board stated that they therefore did not consider this inmate a fitting candidate for early-release or parole, and it altogether meant that this inmate was not going to be considered for this until much later on in his sentence rather than start to move towards early release at the halfway point like a lot of inmates are.
Parties argued:This inmate argued that it was only what he was actually convicted for which should form the facts of his case as is considered by the Parole Board – he argued that the Board should not be allowed to consider these allegations as they were never proved beyond reasonable thereby making them conjecture & irrelevant hearsay rumours. The Parole Board argued that in considering parole they had a much wider remit and could consider all aspects past & present, of the prisoner’s life, and were allowed to hold facts as long as they could be proved on the balance of probabilities – their position was that documentary evidence of other criminal complaints should be considered by the Parole Board when adjudging where the individual continued to pose no risk to the public.
Court held:The Court affirmed that the approach of the Parole Board was the correct one – documentary evidence of crime complaints that people probably committed on the balance of probabilities can be taken into account in deciding if a prisoner is no risk to the public & liable for early release or not, with the Parole Board indeed having a wide remit to consider all aspects of a prisoner’s life before considering if they are eligible for early release or not.
Ratio-decidendi:
‘Finally, as we have trailed above, we do not find the concept of a “mere allegation” and the contrast between that and an allegation for which there is some factual basis to be helpful. There may be some cases where the fact that an allegation has been made should be treated as carrying no weight. For example, if the police interviewed a person in relation to an offence solely on the basis that he had a previous conviction for an analogous offence and without anything otherwise to suggest he might have been the perpetrator of the offence in question, the fact of such an interview could carry no weight. We agree that, generally, a simple report of an accusation, without more, is likely to be incapable of informing the Board’s decision on the statutory question, unless there is material indicating the source and circumstances of the complaint. But such circumstances are likely to be rare. There will often be a police report or a witness statement by the complainant which provides some evidential basis. Creating a dichotomy between a “mere allegation” and an allegation for which there is some factual basis unwarrantably shifts the focus from where it should be, which is on assessing the quality of the evidence of the circumstances surrounding the allegation to determine what, if anything, can be established as relevant facts either as to the truth of the allegation or as to the surrounding circumstances. In the Court of Appeal’s judgment in this case, Macur LJ gives a helpful example of the latter where she speaks of a dossier of a prisoner, who has been convicted of sexual assaults against children, which contains evidence of his being arrested or questioned as a person of interest on another occasion regarding a sexual assault. If the prisoner had been arrested on an occasion other than those which led to his convictions because he was often seen in the children’s playground in which the child had been assaulted, the Board would properly question him on that matter. If his frequent presence in proximity to the playground was established or undisputed, then in the absence of a plausible explanation for his presence, it would point towards risky behaviour which was relevant to the risk assessment. We note that in each of Delaney, Morris and this case there was evidence of facts connected with the allegation of criminal behaviour which the Board could have used or did use as a basis for assessing that the prisoner posed a significant risk to the public. As has often been stated, the weight to be attached to evidence is a matter for the Board subject always to a challenge on the ground of public law irrationality’, Lord Hodge at 93
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.