A Parole Board decision not to release a prisoner after his solicitor arrived late to the hearing has been quashed as unfair by the High Court.

Adrian Woodhouse was appealing against a paper review of his detention on 25 January 2023, which had concluded he should not be released. The 47-year-old had been recalled to prison on licence - from his original 20-year sentence in 2005 for drug dealing - in 2017 after being found in possession of large quantities of cash and drugs. 

Woodhouse’s solicitor arrived at HMP Leyhill on 23 February last year at 9.40am for a three-hour oral appeal hearing, but she was delayed in being granted access as the authorisation form for her laptop could not be found, the High Court heard. The hearing did not commence until 10:20am and lasted just 100 minutes.

The panel concluded that Woodhouse presented ‘a high risk of serious harm to the public’ and declined to release him, a decision the prisoner challenged by judicial review. 

In an acknowledgement of service, the Parole Board said: ‘The defendant is not responsible for the arrival time of the claimant’s representative, or any delays caused by prison staff.'

Tom Little KC, sitting as a judge of the High Court, ruled that the Parole Board decision was procedurally unfair and quashed it, ordering an expedited hearing to happen as soon as possible.

The judge said: 'Whilst it may have been advisable for the claimant’s solicitor to have attended HMP Leyhill slightly earlier than 9.40am as delays of the type that occurred here are not uncommon the critical issue here, in my judgement, is that only two hours was allowed in terms of listing for a hearing which had originally been envisaged to last three and half hours.'

Little pointed out that the Parole Board had taken a neutral position on the judicial review claim and had declined to make submissions beyond the points raised in its acknowledgement of service.

‘Here the acknowledgment of service in addressing the lateness of the claimant’s solicitor missed the real point which was that the realistic length of the hearing had been reduced from three hours plus discussion time to two hours and without notice to the claimant’, Little said.