COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
The Hon. Mr Justice Harrison
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE JUDGE
LORD JUSTICE CARNWATH
| MATTHEW WILLIAMS||Appellant|
|- and -|
|THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT||Respondent|
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Philip Sales and Karen Steyn (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor) for the Respondent
AS APPROVED BY THE COURT
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice JUDGE:
This is the judgment of the Court.
“The Secretary of State’s view based on the material in the dossier is that Mr Williams is not suitable for release or transfer to open conditions.
The Secretary of State notes that Mr Williams’ behaviour is good and that he is beginning to address his offending behaviour.
The Secretary of State also notes that further work is still required and, in particular, psychological assessment. The Secretary of States notes that Mr Williams remains a Category A prisoner and therefore the outstanding work should completed in closed prison conditions”.
“…whilst a Category A prisoner you are unable to access opportunities to demonstrate reduced risk, but unless you do demonstrate such a reduction, you are unlikely to be re-categorised. The panel was concerned that that impasse should come to an end”.
“A period in open conditions is essential for most life sentence prisoners. It allows the testing of areas of concern in conditions which are nearer to those in the community than can be found in closed prisons…open conditions require them to take more responsibility for their actions”.
In the Lifer Manual, paragraph 4.10 identifies the purpose of Category D categorisation in the context of the progress of a life sentence prisoner towards release, as:
“To test lifers in more challenging conditions before being considered for transfer to a pre-release employment scheme…or re-settlement prison prior to release and to provide facilities for supervision, outside activities and temporary release in preparation for final release on licence.”
“Article 5(4) does not…. preclude the Secretary of State from taking a different view than the DLP of the Parole Board as to whether or not the applicant should be moved to open conditions”.