CASE OF GARETH TAYLOR v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)
Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney
5. The applicant was born in 1985 and is currently in detention at HMP Leyhill. 6. He was convicted of offences of sexual activity with a child and breach of a Sexual Offences Prevention Order. In May 2007 he received an indeterminate sentence for public protection (“IPP sentence”). A minimum term (“tariff”) of eighteen months was fixed. 7. He was initially detained at HMP Preston and was transferred to HMP Albany in October 2007. Between December 2007 and April 2008 he incurred seven adjudications for failure to obey or comply with orders and regulations and one adjudication for destroying property. He also underwent assessment of his suitability for a sex offender treatment programme. 8. On 11 January 2008 the applicant was informed of his suitability for the adapted Sex Offender Treatment Programme (“adapted SOTP”). As this was not offered at HMP Albany it was recommended that he transfer to a suitable establishment. 9. On 3 February 2008 the applicant wrote to the National Probation Service (“NPS”) seeking a transfer to another prison to undertake the adapted SOTP. By letter dated 8 February 2008 the NPS Service replied: “I have today spoken to your offender supervisor... I have asked him to try and speed up a transfer for you so that you can at least undertake the adapted SOTP, which you should be suitable for. He says that the only CAT B prison that does this is HMP Hull, but he will try and get you transferred there to do it if possible.” 10. The applicant subsequently complained to HMP Albany on various dates about the failure to transfer him. He was informed that a suitable establishment was being sought. 11. On 5 June 2008 the applicant completed the Enhanced Thinking Skills (“ETS”) course. 12. In around November 2008 the applicant’s tariff expired. 13. In February 2009 a Parole Board Review took place. The Parole Board decided on the papers that the applicant should remain in detention. The Board noted that the applicant had completed the ETS course and would be assessed for, and if found suitable, complete a sex offenders treatment programme. 14. Subsequent correspondence with the Ministry of Justice refers to long prison waiting lists for access to the adapted SOTP and delays in processing applications for prison transfer. 15. By letter dated 3 September 2009 the Secretary of State informed the applicant that he agreed with the Parole Board February 2009 recommendation. He indicated that the applicant was to be assessed for and complete the adapted SOTP. A provisional hearing before the Parole Board was fixed for March 2011. 16. Meanwhile, the applicant was again assessed for suitability for a sex offenders treatment programme. By letter dated 23 October 2009 he was informed that he would be most likely to benefit from the Becoming New Me course (“SOTP BNM”), the replacement for the adapted SOTP. 17. On 24 November 2010 the applicant was transferred to HMP Bure. 18. On 23 December 2010 a Parole Board review took place. 19. On 4 January 2011 the Parole Board notified the applicant of its decision not to direct his release or to recommend his transfer to open conditions. It observed that since his last review the applicant had undertaken training courses in assertiveness skills, understanding the cause of conflict/domestic violence, understanding the boundaries of respectability in relation to children, alcohol awareness and unlocking financial capability. It noted the positive change in his attitude but considered that his risk remained high. It confirmed that he would be required to complete the adapted SOTP prior to release. It concluded: “[We] shared your concern at the fact you have so far been unsuccessful in your attempts to secure a referral to the courses identified as targets on your sentence plan and that furthermore you have recently been moved to a prison that does not run these programmes. However, prisoner location is an operational matter which sits outside of the Parole Board’s remit and is for the prison service and your offender manager to resolve. What does this mean however, is that you remain an untreated sex offender who is unable to demonstrate that the risk you pose has reduced sufficiently to be manageable in the community.” 20. By letter dated 28 March 2011, the Secretary of State agreed with the Parole Board’s recommendation. He referred to the need to complete the SOTP BNM. The applicant’s review period was set at eighteen months consisting of: “ Three months transfer and settling in period in a new establishment Three months assessment for the Becoming New Me programme Six months to complete the Becoming New programme Six months to complete the post Becoming New Me programme report (SARN).” 21. The next parole review was therefore scheduled to commence in January 2012 with the target date for the oral hearing being July 2012. 22. On 8 July 2011 the applicant was transferred to HMP Wymott on his own request on compassionate grounds to be closer to his father, who was unwell. He subsequently asked to remain at HMP Wymott and to be given a place on the SOTP BNM course scheduled to commence in September 2011. As that course was already full, the applicant was informed that he could, if he wished, await the next course to be delivered at HMP Wymott in August/September 2012, for which he would be a priority. 23. On 7 September 2011 the applicant’s representatives wrote to the Governor of HMP Bure and HMP Wymott notifying them that judicial review proceedings were being contemplated against them and the Secretary of State. They sought confirmation that the SOTP BNM course would be made available to the applicant. 24. By letter dated 1 November 2011 HMP Wymott replied in the following terms: “I acknowledge that your client’s initial transfer to HMP Wymott was on compassionate grounds ... The fact that Mr Taylor elected not to return to HMP Bure is a factor that must be considered when determining whether or not his progress through the prison service has been slow ... Although, I would argue that the prompt intervention of his newly appointed Offender Supervisor and the attempts he made to source a suitable course at HMP Wymott would indicate that HMP Wymott were not at fault for any delays to your client’s progress. Your client is known to our Programmes team, is in the assessment process and his post tariff status will ensure that he is prioritised accordingly for the next BNM courses which should be delivered from approximately August/September 2012.” 25. The prison offered to facilitate a transfer to another prison where the applicant might be able to access the SOTP BNM more speedily. He chose to remain at HMP Wymott to await a place on the SOTP BNM there. 26. On 25 April 2012 a Parole Board review took place on the papers. The Board decided not to direct the applicant’s release or recommend his transfer to open conditions. It concluded: “You committed serious index offending, which targeted a vulnerable victim ... The panel was also concerned that, at a young age, you already had a conviction record that included previous violent and sexual offending against vulnerable female victims. It is to your credit that you have some understanding of the risk you pose, and that you are motivated to undertake work to address your sexual offending behaviour. However, you have yet to undertake this work. The panel is also concerned that you have a history of breaching trust and reoffending despite measures being put in place to contain your risk ...” 27. By letter dated 5 July 2012 the Secretary of State indicated that he agreed with the Parole Board recommendation. He confirmed the SOTP BNM as an appropriate course to reduce the applicant’s risk of reoffending. The next review was scheduled to commence in April 2013 and to be concluded by December 2013. 28. The applicant commenced the SOTP BNM as planned on 23 August 2012 and completed it on 2 February 2013. 29. A further Parole Board review took place on 26 February 2014. The Board decided not to direct the applicant’s release, but recommended his transfer to open conditions.