Bayliss v The Parole Board of England & Wales
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- (LORD JUSTICE ETHERTON)
- LORD JUSTICE FULFORD
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Human Rights Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
On June 29, 2006, the applicant was sentenced to an indeterminate sentence for public protection (IPP) after pleading guilty to causing death by dangerous driving. Multiple appeals for release were denied by the Parole Board. The Court of Appeal quashed his IPP sentence in 2012, substituting it with a determinate 4-year sentence. The applicant's judicial review claim for unlawful detention and Article 5 violations was dismissed. In the current appeal, the court allowed limited permission on the ground that post-tariff detention might be arbitrary if the IPP criteria were unmet.
J U D G M E N T
LORD JUSTICE FULFORD:
History
On 29th June 2006 the applicant pleaded guilty to an offence of causing death by dangerous driving, together with offences of aggravated vehicle taking and driving whilst disqualified. The applicant had taken a motor vehicle without the consent of its owner on 20th April 2006, and on 22nd April 2006 he drove dangerously and at high speed over a bridge in Oxfordshire. He lost control of the car and killed his passenger, a young woman called Susan Fenton. He was sentenced to an indeterminate sentence for public protection under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, with a specified minimum term of 2 years.
The judge's calculation of the minimum term was based on a sentence of 6 years' imprisonment following a contested trial, from which one-third was deducted to reflect the applicant's guilty plea. The resultant term of 4 years' imprisonment was then halved on account of the early release provisions. 62 days that he had spent on remand were also deducted. This "tariff" period expired on 28th April 2008. He remained in custody after that date.
Whilst in prison he used drugs whilst on the Rehabilitation for Addicted Prisoners Trust Programme and he was the subject of a number of adjudications for unauthorised use of controlled drugs. His case was reviewed by the Parole Board and on 5th October 2010 and in a lengthy decision, in which it was decided not to release the applicant or to move him from closed conditions, the Board expressly referred to the continued support of the applicant's parents and the visits he was receiving from his then 15-year-old daughter. This is relevant to the applicant's sixth ground of appeal, to which I turn to later in this judgment. The Board questioned whether the influence of the applicant's family was likely to improve his behaviour.
On 21st December 2011 the Parole Board again rejected his application for release. They considered his suitability for transfer to open conditions at an oral hearing, observing that he had been assessed as:
"... posing a significant risk. He had long- standing problems with drugs misuse and it was considered that the risk factors could only be addressed whilst he was in the security of those conditions."
The Board had before it, inter alia, the earlier decisions together with a document entitled "Written representations in support of release on behalf of Lee Bayliss" dated 16th August 2011. This included a considerable amount of material