The Divisional Court of the High Court has ruled the prisoner "absconder policy" is inconsistent with the Secretary of State's Directions to the Parole Board of England and Wales.
The case challenging the policy was taken by John Gilbert. Mr. Gilbert pleaded guilty to wounding with intent to cause grievously bodily harm in April 2008. He received the maximum term of four years and six months minus the time spent on remand.
The policy was introduced by the Secretary of State in May 2014 with immediate effect. Published in August 2014, the policy was an interim amendment to the PSO 6300 Release on Temporary Licence. This came in response to three serious incidents of offences committed by prisoners on release on temporary licence in the summer of 2013, and high profile prisoner absconds in 2014.
In November 2012 the Parole Board recommended the transfer of Mr. Gilbert to open conditions. Following the recommendation Mr. Gilbert was transferred to HMP Stanford Hill prison in January 2013. His sentence plan included gradual progression to 'release on temporary licence'.
After a successful period in open conditions, including being released on temporary licence on three separate days, Mr. Gilbert failed to return to prison after missing the train on June 2nd, 2013, by 7pm. The following morning Mr. Gilbert surrendered to Eastbourne police station.
As a consequence of the policy Mr. Gilbert was ineligible for transfer to open conditions. On August 15th, 2014, Mr. Gilbert was refused a transfer to open conditions.
Rejecting the "absconder policy" as inconsistent, the Court reasoned:
It is irrational to say in two policy documents in force at the same time (a) in most cases phased release via open conditions will be necessary to test whether the prisoner can be safely released into the community but (b) if the prisoner has failed on one occasion to return from [release on temporary licence], only in exceptional circumstances will it be necessary (or "absolutely necessary") to operate a phased release via open conditions to test whether the prisoner can be safely released into the community.
The Court granted the Secretary of State permission to appeal against the judgment. However the Court rejected an application for a stay pending the outcome of an appeal.
