A prison governor who had relied on a flawed RC1 risk assessment form when approving the recategorisation of a prisoner from Category C to open conditions had been entitled to reverse his decision upon learning that the form had omitted to refer to an unsatisfied confiscation order, which meant that the prisoner was at a higher risk of absconding than previously thought. No elaborate reasons for the reversal were needed; it was acceptable simply to explain his view that the existence of the confiscation order was decisive against recategorisation.

[2013] EWHC 1821 (Admin)

The Department of Justice in Northern Ireland had a discretionary power to reconsider an earlier decision of the secretary of state to refuse compensation under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 s.133 for people who had spent time in custody following a wrongful conviction.

[2013] NIQB 59

Where an appeal decision of the Independent Police Complaints Commission had been based upon a misunderstanding of the facts and lack of clarity in reasoning that rendered it difficult to understand, and where it had also included unjustified criticisms of a police officer, it was quashed as being fatally flawed and irrational.

[2008] EWHC 1158 (Admin)

The secretary of state had not acted unfairly or in breach of legitimate expectation in deciding to abolish a discretionary ex gratia scheme, under which compensation was paid to those who had suffered miscarriages of justice, without notice or prior consultation. There was nothing amounting to a representation or promise either that the scheme would continue indefinitely or that the secretary of state would consult or give notice before withdrawing it.

[2007] EWHC 1495 (Admin)

The Criminal Justice Act 1991 s.39 did not confine a prisoner who had been released on licence but recalled to prison to making only one set of written representations about his recall but it did not enable repeated further written representations to be made regardless of their merit. It was for the secretary of state to decide whether the further written representations demonstrated a material change in circumstances relevant to the recall decision so as to give rise to the duty to refer them to the Parole Board.

[2004] EWHC 2143 (Admin)

In determining whether to re-release a prisoner on licence there was no requirement for the Parol Board to compare the risk presented by the prisoner at the date of any decision as to release and the risk as at the date of the prisoner’s original sentence.

[2004] EWHC 872 (Admin)

A decision by the secretary of state whether or not to designate a prisoner as a technical lifer was not a sentencing exercise and accordingly the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Art.6 had not applied. A refusal to grant the claimant technical lifer status was lawful and rational in light of the material presented.

[2003] EWHC 3152 (Admin)

The warnings scheme established by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s.65 was not prima facie inconsistent with the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.6. However, to be compliant with the Convention, it was important that the offender had been advised of all the consequences of the reprimand or warning and had given his informed consent to the procedure being adopted.

[2002] EWHC 2486 (Admin)

Extradition proceedings can only be discontinued by the state making the application.