[2013] EWHC 1821 (Admin) [2013] EWHC 1821 (Admin)

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] NIQB 59 [2013] NIQB 59

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.

[2008] EWHC 1158 (Admin) [2008] EWHC 1158 (Admin)

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.

[2007] EWHC 1495 (Admin) [2007] EWHC 1495 (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.

[2004] EWHC 2143 (Admin) [2004] EWHC 2143 (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.