Goldsmith v Secretary of State for Justice — Quashes unlawful prison transfer refusal; declines mandatory reconsideration pending updated Parole Board review

The Court’s Holding

The court declined to issue a mandatory order requiring a fresh decision within 21 days. While remedies in judicial review are discretionary, the court held that public law principles require a court exercising its discretion to have regard to the authority’s ability to fulfill its statutory functions with full relevant information and in the public interest. Deputy Judge Kinnier concluded that the Secretary of State would be better positioned to make a lawful fresh decision with the benefit of the Parole Board’s updated recommendations following its August 2026 hearing.

The court emphasized that the Board’s August 2023 advice had been materially overtaken by events, particularly Goldsmith’s progression to a Category C establishment, which directly bore on whether he had “internalized” his learning since the original advice. The court accepted that permitting the Board review to proceed would provide the Secretary of State with current evidence from relevant witnesses and enable the Board to advise on the most appropriate course going forward.

The court did order that the decision be quashed, that the Secretary of State pay Goldsmith’s reasonable costs on the standard basis with a 60% payment on account within 14 days, and that the legally aided costs be subject to detailed assessment. The decision on costs was agreed between the parties.

Key Takeaways

• Quashing orders, though the usual remedy in judicial review, do not automatically trigger mandatory relief requiring a decision within a specified timeframe; courts must exercise discretion having regard to the authority’s ability to function effectively with complete information.
• Administrative decision-makers may appropriately defer implementation of a quashed decision to obtain updated professional advice or evidence, particularly when scheduled review hearings are imminent and would provide materially relevant current information.
• Material changes in an applicant’s circumstances (here, prison classification progression) may render earlier professional recommendations outdated, justifying reliance on forthcoming updated advice rather than immediate reconsideration based on stale information.
• Even where the court finds an original decision unlawful, the discretionary nature of relief permits the court to balance the applicant’s interest in prompt reconsideration against the public interest in decisions being made with the most current and complete information available.

Why It Matters

This decision illustrates the nuanced approach English administrative law takes to remedies following a finding of unlawfulness. It confirms that courts will not routinely impose rigid timescales for reconsideration when doing so would force a decision-maker to rely on outdated or incomplete information. The judgment reinforces that the Secretary of State’s parole decision-making function is best served by access to fresh Parole Board advice rather than hasty reconsideration of earlier recommendations that have been overtaken by the passage of time and changed circumstances.

For practitioners, the case demonstrates that while judicial review claimants commonly seek mandatory orders with fixed decision deadlines, courts retain significant discretion to decline such relief where the authority’s statutory functions can be better discharged through waiting for updated information or professional guidance. The court’s reasoning—that waiting until late August 2026 for the Board’s review was not a substantial delay given the importance of current evidence—may be cited in future cases involving similar fact patterns where intermediate reviews or decisions are scheduled before the relief hearing.