A British Airways captain who bludgeoned his wife to death more than 13 years ago has brought a High Court challenge against a Government move to block his automatic release from prison.
Robert Brown fatally beat his 46-year-old millionairess wife Joanna Simpson with a claw hammer in their family home in October 2010, as their two young children cowered in a playroom.
Jailed for 26 years in 2011, Brown now claims that “political motivation” amid a media campaign against his release improperly contributed to a decision to refer his case to the Parole Board.
His lawyers argued at a hearing in London on Wednesday that Justice Secretary Alex Chalk’s referral was unlawful, while the Government says his legal action should be dismissed.
Brown was cleared of murder after a trial, but admitted manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, with a psychiatric report saying he suffered from an “adjustment disorder”.
Aged 47 at sentencing, Brown believed he was “stitched up” by a prenuptial agreement and was affected by stress linked to his divorce, a judge was told.
In October, Mr Chalk used new powers to have Brown’s case reviewed by the Parole Board rather than allow his release on licence at the halfway point of his sentence.
It came after Ms Simpson’s friends and family had urged the minister to intervene before Brown was due to leave prison in November.
Brown’s lawyers argue that the Parole Board referral was “an obvious attempt to seek to reverse engineer justification for a decision that was in reality prompted and obtained through conscious or unconscious political bias”.
His legal team said the risk posed by Brown had not increased and that he had been “subjected to a high-profile campaign through the media and with politicians that has sought to block his release”.
The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) rejects his allegations, arguing that Mr Chalk “in no way seeks to ‘go behind’ or ‘disapply’ or ‘fail to respect’ the sentencing court’s decision”.
Lawyers for the department say Mr Chalk believed Brown “would pose a significant risk of serious harm to the public if released on licence”, adding that the offender had “persistently refused to engage in the rehabilitative elements of his sentence”.
Philip Rule KC, representing Brown, said in written arguments that there had been “high level political support” for a campaign against Brown’s release, adding that “prejudicial documentation” from Ms Simpson’s family had allegedly been unfairly considered “in secret behind closed doors”.
He said Mr Chalk had been “sympathetic” to the campaign, holding “multiple private meetings” with campaigners and speaking about the case on TV.
Mr Rule, who did not criticise the family, said Brown’s disorder had been resolved, that he was not expected to have further mental health issues, and that his “out-of-character offending occurred in a very specific situation”.
Mr Chalk’s referral, enabled through a “power to detain” provision introduced through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, overrode Brown’s automatic release.
It means the Parole Board, an independent body that carries out risk assessments on prisoners to determine whether they can be safely released, will make a decision on whether to release Brown.
The MOJ has previously said the new powers are designed to protect the public from dangerous offenders if they present a risk that cannot be safely managed through usual licence conditions in the community.
Ministers have no power to alter Brown’s overall sentence, which will expire in November 2036, the latest date for his release, the court was told.
Iain Steele, for the MOJ, said in written arguments that Mr Chalk had acted lawfully, adding that the suggestion of “improper influence” by people opposed to Brown’s release was “wholly without merit”.
The lawyer said it was “the right and responsibility of any elected politician” to engage with crime victims, but Mr Chalk had been “scrupulous in avoiding any pre-determination or influence over his decision”.
Mr Steele said there was no evidence that Mr Chalk’s move was “predetermined or that the decision-making process was in effect a sham”, adding that it was based on “an abundance of evidence, information and analysis”.
Brown’s “deliberate and repeated non-engagement” with probation officers had “handicapped” their ability to assess his “psychological vulnerabilities”, with him now considered to pose “a high risk of serious harm to the public,” the court was told.
Ms Simpson’s mother, Diana Parkes, who followed Wednesday’s hearing via a video link, has previously urged the Parole Board to to “keep him in jail” and was made a CBE in December for services to vulnerable children suffering from domestic abuse and domestic homicide.
Brown, formerly of Winkfield in Berkshire, was sentenced to 24 years for manslaughter and a further two years for an offence of obstructing a coroner in the execution of his duty.
He killed Ms Simpson one week before the finalisation of their divorce and dumped her body in a makeshift coffin in Windsor Great Park.
The hearing before Mr Justice Ritchie will conclude on Thursday, with a ruling expected at a later date.