Background
Darren Hewitson is serving concurrent sentences of imprisonment for public protection and had never been released. By the time of the challenged decisions, he had spent more than 18 years in custody and more than 11 years beyond the minimum term for his most recent sentence. Although then held in Scotland, he remained within the jurisdiction of the Parole Board for England and Wales.
On 13 January 2026, a Parole Board panel provisionally declined to direct release or recommend transfer to open conditions and concluded that an oral hearing was unnecessary. After obtaining legal representation, Hewitson submitted detailed representations seeking an oral hearing, emphasizing his mental-health conditions, disputed security information, lack of a meaningful progression pathway, and the possibility that prison was exacerbating his risk. A duty member refused that request on 26 February 2026, making the paper decision final. Hewitson sought judicial review for procedural unfairness and incompatibility with Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Court’s Holding
The High Court held that fairness required an oral hearing. The Parole Board’s own provisional decision recognized that Hewitson’s mental health contributed to self-harm and risk, that prison might reinforce and trigger his negative beliefs and mistrust, and that a more therapeutic and trauma-responsive setting might warrant consideration. Yet neither the provisional decision nor the final refusal adequately resolved or engaged with those matters. An oral hearing could assist the Board’s independent risk assessment through evidence from Hewitson and psychological or psychiatric professionals and could materially affect his prison management or future reviews.
The court also held that the final refusal failed to engage with Hewitson’s representations, gave inadequate reasons, and did not apply the anxious scrutiny required for a post-tariff indeterminate-sentence prisoner. Those failures amounted to procedural unfairness and a failure to act compatibly with Article 5(4). The court was not satisfied, however, that the Board’s omission to address Hewitson’s disputes about security entries independently established legal error or materially affected whether an oral hearing was required.
The court quashed the Parole Board’s decisions of 13 January and 26 February 2026 and directed it to convene an oral hearing as soon as reasonably practicable. It did not order expedition.
Key Takeaways
- A post-tariff IPP prisoner’s prospects of immediate release do not determine whether procedural fairness requires an oral hearing.
- An oral hearing was required because Hewitson’s mental health, the possible risk-enhancing effects of imprisonment, and potential therapeutic alternatives needed fuller examination, including possible expert evidence.
- The Parole Board must engage with material representations, give adequate reasons, and scrutinize continued detention increasingly anxiously as time beyond tariff grows.
Why It Matters
The judgment reinforces that parole reviews concern not only release but also risk management, treatment needs, prison placement, and matters affecting future reviews. Where mental-health evidence is central to both risk and its management, a paper review may be insufficient even if an oral hearing occurred in an earlier review.
For practitioners representing post-tariff indeterminate-sentence prisoners, the decision highlights the importance of identifying specific issues that oral testimony or expert evidence could clarify. For the Parole Board, it underscores that acknowledging unresolved therapeutic or environmental questions without meaningfully addressing them may render a refusal of an oral hearing unlawful.