Secretary of State for Justice (Respondent) v Sneddon and another (Appellants)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2024/1007

Parties

Appellant(s)

Robert Sneddon

Karl Oakley

Respondent(s)

Secretary of State for Justice

Issue

What is the correct test of review for a court to apply when reviewing a decision of the Secretary of State to not follow a recommendation made by the Parole Board?

Facts

The First Appellant, Mr Sneddon, is a prisoner serving three concurrent life sentences, one imposed in 1982 and two further sentences imposed in 2015. The minimum term, or “tariff”, of the 1982 life sentence expired in 1992 but he was never released prior to his further conviction in 2015. The tariff of the 2015 life sentences expired on 26 June 2023. On 18 December 2009, the Second Appellant, Mr Oakley, was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a minimum term of 15 years (reduced to 12 years on appeal). That minimum term expired on 21 February 2021. The Respondent, the Secretary of State for Justice, on separate occasions referred the First Appellant’s case and the Second Appellant’s case to the Parole Board so that it could consider whether to recommend their transfer to open conditions prior to the expiry of their respective minimum terms. In separate decisions, the Parole Board determined that both the First Appellant and Second Appellant were suitable for open conditions. The Respondent rejected the Parole Board’s recommendation in each case and determined that both the First Appellant and the Second Appellant were to remain in closed conditions, observing that there was “not a wholly persuasive case for transferring [the relevant Appellant] to open conditions at this time”. The High Court allowed the First Appellant’s claim for judicial review and quashed the Respondent’s decision. The Respondent reconsidered the First Appellant’s case and, on 22 February 2024, approved his transfer to open conditions. The First Appellant is presently in an open prison. In a separate decision, the High Court dismissed the Second Appellant’s claim for judicial review. Hearing the appeals together, the Court of Appeal allowed the Respondent’s appeal in respect of the First Appellant and dismissed the Second Appellant’s appeal. The Appellants now appeal to the Supreme Court.

Date of issue

12 December 2024

Case origin

PTA

Back to top