M25 killer Kenneth Noye has won a battle in the High Court over whether he gets moved to an open prison.

Noye, 69, was convicted of murdering 21-year-old Stephen Cameron in an attack at the Swanley interchange in 1996.

Following the attack, Noye, originally from Bexleyheath, went on the run and wasn’t arrested until two years later in Spain.

He was given a life sentence and ordered to serve a minimum of 16 years.

In September 2015 the parole board refused to order his release but recommended he be transferred to an open prison.

Justice secretary at the time Michael Gove rejected the move.

On Friday a judge ruled in Noye’s favour.

Mr Justice Lavender quashed the refusal decision and announced: "It will be for the current secretary of state to take a fresh decision whether or not to transfer the claimant to an open prison."

Noye's lawyer argued at a hearing last month that the rejection decision was ''unlawful and irrational''.

Edward Fitzgerald said the Parole Board panel ''concluded that the benefits of a move to open conditions outweighed the risk of such a move, and they found that the claimant's risk had significantly reduced'' since the killing of Mr Cameron.

He added: "They noted that he had made significant progress in changing his attitudes and tackling his behavioural problems."

Tom Weisselberg, for the justice secretary, said Mr Gove had decided he would ''personally take the decision on transfer and would not leave the decision to his officials''.

He said: ''He was rightly concerned about a decision which would have the effect of undermining public confidence.''

The decision not to transfer was made as the result of a number of factors, the court heard, including Mr Gove’s “doubts as to the credibility of the claimant’s claims” that he had “changed his attitude to violence”, the “risk of absconding posed by the claimant’s links to Spain”, the “risk of violence linked to the claimant’s ego and desire to be in control”, and his “use of excessive violence”.

Mr Weisselberg submitted: ”’The secretary of state was entitled to consider the risk to the public posed by the claimant and to decide that further work needed to be done by the claimant in closed conditions before a transfer to open conditions would be appropriate.”

But Mr Justice Lavender ruled that the “Secretary of state approached the assessment of both the risk of future violence and the related risk of absconding on an inappropriate basis”.

A Ministry of Justice spokeswoman said: "We have noted the court's findings and will consider."