The King (on the application of Jacki Duff) v The Secretary of State for Justice – High Court – [2024] EWHC 917 (Admin) – Case Summary

This case concerned a judicial review claim brought by Ms. Jacki Duff against the Secretary of State for Justice, challenging the decision to terminate her membership of the Parole Board following her mistaken release of a prisoner. The High Court dismissed the claim, upholding the decision to terminate Ms. Duff's membership based on the single incident of gross negligence and her subsequent conduct.

TLDR:

• Ms. Duff's membership of the Parole Board was terminated following a grossly negligent decision to release a prisoner.
• The termination panel and the Secretary of State found Ms. Duff failed to read the case dossier properly, constituting gross negligence.
• Ms. Duff's claim that her judicial independence was infringed was rejected, as the issue was a failure to act judicially.
• The High Court found no error in the lack of consideration of alternative sanctions or personal mitigation by the termination panel and the Secretary of State.
• The claim for judicial review was dismissed, with the court finding the termination decision reasonable and lawful.

The factual background of the case involves Ms. Duff, a non-practising barrister and former Parole Board member, who directed the release of prisoner William Pulman under a misapprehension of his criminal record and custody status. The termination panel later recommended that the Secretary of State terminate Ms. Duff's membership, which was subsequently done. Ms. Duff's judicial review claim challenged this decision on the grounds of reasonableness and the consideration of alternative sanctions.

The High Court's judgment focused on the distinction between judicial acts done in good faith and a failure to act judicially. It concluded that Ms. Duff's actions fell into the latter category and that her termination was a result of her failure to prepare the case properly, rather than an infringement on judicial independence. Additionally, the court found that the termination panel and the Secretary of State did consider Ms. Duff's personal mitigation factors but ultimately found that the seriousness of the error and lack of insight into her conduct justified termination of her membership.

Legal representatives: Ms Nicola Braganza KC and Ms Jodie Blackstock for the Claimant, Mr Mark Vinall and Mr Will Bordell for the Defendant, Mr Fraser Campbell for the Interested Party

Judicial Panel: Mr Justice Kerr

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWHC 917 (Admin)