[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Crooks, R (on the application of) v Parole Board [2014] EWHC 4630 (Admin) (06 November 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2014/4630.html Cite as: [2014] EWHC 4630 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		6 November 2014

1. MR JUSTICE TURNER: This application is refused. My reasons for refusal are as follows.
2. This is an application by Mr Crooks in relation to a decision of the Parole Board not to conclude that it would be appropriate for him to be moved to open prison conditions. The Claimant challenges that decision on a number of grounds. Firstly, he complains that he wanted to rely upon evidence to be given orally by a psychologist by the name of Ms Bowers. Unhappily, she was not available on the day upon which the hearing was due to take place and initial attempts were made on his behalf to defer the hearing. However, on the morning of the hearing Mr Crooks himself made a decision, which he was entitled to do, that he would prefer to go ahead rather than for the matter to be deferred. Accordingly, no application was made on the morning for deferral and the matter went ahead.
3. The Parole Board, in reaching its conclusions, specifically referred to the report of Ms Bowers and said:

"Ms Bowers had been unavailable for the hearing and your legal representative accepted the earlier decision by the Panel Chair not to defer your case on that account. Her Report had been comprehensive and supportive of your position. The Panel took it fully into account."

4. It was entirely a matter of discretion, so far as the Panel were concerned, as to whether or not they felt that they could be adequately assisted by the report, standing on its own, or whether it would be necessary for Ms Bowers to give evidence. There is some specific complaint made that in relation to one paragraph of the report there was reference to the declining likelihood of recidivism in a sexual offender with age. However, upon a close reading of the statement of the solicitor in relation to what occurred, it is not the case that the Parole Board were saying that they would not take into account a fact, which is probably clear and obvious to anybody as a matter of common sense, that once people get into their 60s and even further into their 70s, their sexual performance and libido declines. Indeed, that point was made in the SARN report, the author of which had also presented evidence to the Parole Board and that was specifically referred to. The only criticism that really is made when one has cleared away the patina from this allegation is that there was a report specifically in relation to the detail of recidivism, to which a footnote reference had been made, referable back to the context of paragraph 6.4 of Ms Bowers' report, into which the Parole Board did not want further to enquire as to detail. But that does not mean to say -- and I do not interpret it as saying -- that somehow they were taking what would be an extraordinary course of ignoring evidence about which the experts were unanimous and which is obvious and that is the older people get, the less interested they are in sex.
5. So in relation to the question as to whether or not it was appropriate for them to proceed on the basis of that report, I unhesitatingly reach the conclusion that it was an entirely a matter within their discretion and it is very difficult for the Claimant now to complain about it; he had already made the decision on the morning he wanted to go ahead.
6. Another complaint made in relation to the approach of the Panel concerns the evidence relating to the incident which sparked off the investigation, which in turn culminated in the prosecution and subsequent pleas of guilty and imprisonment of Mr Crooks in the first place. In a nutshell, what occurred was that a paper boy making a delivery spotted Mr Crooks naked. The matter was investigated and the police arrived and found indecent images on Mr Crooks' computer. As his criminality unravelled, evidence came to light that he had been sexually abusing in a serious way underage boys for a very long time.
7. One of the issues that the Parole Board were entitled to consider was the extent to which Mr Crooks had come to terms with his own offending. He was asked during the course of the hearing about the incident with the paper boy and he persisted in his explanation that he was posing for an art group at the time. It is hardly surprising, in the view of this court, that, bearing in mind what was revealed consequent upon the paper boy's complaint, happened to be consistent with a seriously criminal paedophile, that they were cynical about that explanation. It may be as a matter of human nature that it is understandable that people want to minimise the extent of their criminality or antisocial behaviour, but it still is a matter that they were entitled to take into account; it was not a court of law, they were not bound by the strict rules of evidence in relation to matters that would bind the Crown Court or the Magistrates' Court and, as is apparent from the case of Brooks v The Parole Board [2004] EWCA Civ 80, it is perfectly open to the Parole Board, so far as the circumstances allow, to make decisions about behaviour based on evidence which falls far short of that which would be required in a criminal court context. Bearing in mind the circumstances of this case, one cannot blame the Parole Board for doubting that the protestations of Mr Crooks in relation to his activities involving the paper boy were true.
8. So stepping back from the detail of that, the Parole Board had the advantage, which this court does not, of watching and hearing the Claimant give evidence and reaching their own conclusions in relation to the extent to which he was coming to terms with his own previous criminal behaviour. They said:

"You still minimise the circumstance which led to your being reported to the police. You had been seen by a paper boy naked at the window, which you continue to maintain was whilst you were modelling and was unintentional, but which the Panel very much doubts was the case."

9. It is complained that the Panel reached a different conclusion to the experts in relation to relocation, but that is their function. We do not have adjudication by expert, either in court or in the Parole Board and, bearing in mind that they had the additional advantage, to which I have already referred, of seeing and hearing Mr Crooks give evidence, they were entitled to come to the conclusion they did. Their conclusion was as follows:

"The Panel has carefully weighed the benefit to you of being able to address areas of concern in a less constrained environment, where you would be more realistically tested, against any risk of harm that you pose. Having heard your evidence and the manner in which you gave it, the Panel considers that, at the present time, you still lack sufficient insight into your offending behaviour. It accepts that your core risks have been addressed to a degree but, even at the hearing, you revealed a tendency to put some responsibility on to your child victims for your own sexual behaviour with them. It has concluded that you have not yet made sufficient progress in reducing your risk to a level consistent with protecting the public from harm where, in open conditions, you would be in the community, unsupervised, under licensed temporary release. The risks outweigh the benefits at the present time."

10. It has to be borne in mind that the job of the Parole Board is not the same as the job of psychologists and psychiatrists. They have a public duty to fulfil to balance the risks and come to a decision based on the evidence, which is not the same approach that psychiatrists and psychologists would do, who are necessarily and perfectly properly centred upon the Claimant himself.
11. Bearing all those factors in mind, I am satisfied that the criticism that the Parole Board failed to take into account relevant features in coming to their decision and were not entitled to come to that decision because of the expert's conclusions is wrong. They specifically referred to Ms Bowers' report in the terms I have identified and there is no evidence to suggest that when they said they took it fully into account they did not do so. I said during the course of argument this is not a tick box exercise and it is not appropriate to scrutinise decisions of the Parole Board on the basis that one has to look and see whether each and every nuance of evidence in the case is reflected in their decision. This was a detailed decision, four pages closely typed, coming to a consistent and entirely satisfactory conclusion based on the way they deal with the evidence.
12. In those circumstances, the application is dismissed.