Background
Yusuf Jama is serving a life sentence for murder, with a minimum term expiring in November 2040, and a sentence of imprisonment for public protection for rape. After more than 19 years in custody, he remained a Category A prisoner and had never received an oral hearing concerning his security recategorisation.
In November 2024, the Category A Review Team declined both to downgrade Jama to Category B and to hold an oral hearing. The materials included positive assessments of his progress, a recommendation for downgrading from his prison offender manager, and an independent psychologist’s opinion that his risk had significantly reduced. Other material raised concerns about his ability to apply learned skills consistently, alleged involvement with drugs and mobile phones, and the possible benefit of placement in a Psychologically Informed Planned Environment. Jama sought judicial review only of the refusal to hold an oral hearing, alleging noncompliance with Prison Service Instruction 08/2013 and common-law procedural unfairness.
The Court’s Holding
The High Court dismissed the claim. Judge Dight held that the Director had lawfully applied the policy governing oral hearings, considered Jama’s particular circumstances, addressed the relevant factors, and provided sufficient reasons for concluding that no hearing was required. The substantive decision to retain Jama in Category A was not itself under challenge.
The disputed security intelligence did not require an oral hearing because the Director treated it as unproven, gave it limited weight, and reasonably concluded that a hearing was unlikely to resolve the dispute. The differing psychological opinions likewise did not require oral examination: their reasoning was understandable from the written reports, and the ultimate assessment of whether there was convincing evidence of significantly reduced risk if Jama were unlawfully at large belonged to the Director. Jama was not at an impasse because a further pathway through a PIPE unit had been identified, and his long period in Category A carried less weight because he remained many years from tariff expiry.
The written procedure was also fair at common law. Jama and his lawyers received the relevant materials, knew the case to meet, and submitted extensive written representations and an independent expert report, all of which the Director considered before deciding that an oral hearing was unnecessary.
Key Takeaways
- An oral hearing is not automatically required merely because a Category A prisoner disputes security intelligence or presents an expert recommendation supporting downgrading.
- The central recategorisation question is whether convincing evidence shows that the prisoner’s risk of similar reoffending if unlawfully at large has significantly reduced, not whether the prisoner is likely to escape.
- Lengthy Category A detention and the absence of any previous oral hearing are relevant but not decisive, particularly where the prisoner remains far from tariff expiry and has an identified progression pathway.
Why It Matters
The judgment confirms that courts will scrutinise whether Category A decision-makers conscientiously applied the oral-hearing policy, while leaving the weight assigned to relevant factors and expert materials to the decision-maker. A genuine disagreement in the written evidence does not by itself make a hearing necessary; the issue is whether oral examination could materially assist resolution of a point important to the risk assessment.
For practitioners, the decision underscores the need to identify a concrete, consequential dispute that an oral hearing could realistically resolve. Detailed written participation may satisfy procedural fairness where the evidence and competing positions are already clear.