“[He] has a number of protective factors in place, and he is currently engaging with ways to strengthen these further for the future. The protective nature of some of these factors may be lessened should he progress to open conditions, and it will be important for professionals working with [him] to support him with his continued development and strengthening of these items for the future. In particular, [he] should be supported to strengthen his social network and engagement with leisure activities as well as supporting him with development of life goals and plans for his future.”
“ There is unlikely to be any further work to benefit [him] within closed conditions and he should focus on consolidating his learning from the recent intervention. It is, therefore, my professional opinion that his risk is manageable in open conditions. Should [his] offence stance change, his risk should be reviewed to consider any outstanding areas of risk.”
“[He] made a number of comments within interview about feeling guilty about the victim’s murder and when discussing the death of his friend, he stated “if I had died then Zoe would still be alive as I wouldn’t have come into her life”
“During interview, [he] described overwhelming negative thoughts relating to the loss of a friend whilst in the army and he also stated he thinks about the victim of his index offence on a daily basis with strong thoughts of blame towards himself for both these events. [He] has developed some techniques, such as mindfulness, to help manage these strong negative thoughts and he identified occasions when he has been using these techniques. In addition, [he] stated he recognises the importance of asking for help and speaking to others about his feelings and he has started to put this into practice with professions. We discussed his ability to speak to his personal support network about his feelings and [he] stated he is able to talk to his sister, but this is an area of support he would like to develop further with others. Therefore, this this remains a relevant area to some extent.”
“Research suggests denial in itself does not increase risk and it seems more important at this stage to consider whether [he] has addressed all the potential factors associated with his risk. If [he] was to have admitted his offending, it is unlikely that he would have been recommended to engage in any additional intervention work to that he has now engaged with. He presents a moderate static risk of reoffending and assessments of his current skills suggest he possesses a number of the skills covered through accredited interventions. Unless [he] was to acknowledge a strong offence related sexual interest, there is no evidence from file information or interview to suggest this would remain an outstanding area of risk.”
“Many years later in 2014 he told Psychologist Tania Moss that he retracted as he felt maintaining a lie would be difficult and his mother was not happy with his change of stance. It is also reported that [he] has said that the only reason for making a confession was that he had been ill-advised by fellow prisoners that he would never be released unless he admitted guilt. He repeated this explanation to the current panel. The panel find themselves unable to draw any conclusions about this ‘confession’ and its subsequent retraction. In any event the Parole Board is bound by the verdict of the sentencing Court and so the Board’s starting point is that [he] was rightly convicted and is, therefore, guilty of the offence for which he was convicted.”
“The panel agree with the above assessments and conclude that [he] poses a High Risk of serious harm to children and a Medium Risk of causing such harm to known adults. So far as his identified risk factors are concerned the panel find no evidence that any of them are live and current, which indicates that in the community risk would not be imminent. The important caveat is the uncertainty about risk factors which may not have been identified or addressed, as a result of [his] maintenance of innocence, which means that the full extent to which his risk may have been addressed is uncertain and is yet to be tested in conditions of lesser security.”
“Having reviewed the evidence available, the Secretary of State is concerned by the stance of denial, which by all accounts is inconsistent and the implications of this for a full and thorough assessment of risk. The most recent Psychological Risk Assessment (PRA), dated22 July 2024 , states that there are significant limitations to the assessment of risk and formulation of the offence due to the fact you continue to maintain your innocence. Whilst it is your right to protest your innocence, there are implications for the accurate assessment of risk which is an important consideration when assessing your suitably for the open estate.”
“The psychologist has stated that where risk may be unclear the only way to deal with it is through monitoring and external controls, suggesting that in the future risk may increase if you feel helpless or suffer low self-esteem, if you become angry or frustrated, if you were to use sex as a coping strategy, or if you become isolated and withdraw; however, was of the view warning signs would be evident. Your application is for a progressive move to open conditions for a gradual reintroduction into the community, and not release, due to an acceptance that you are institutionalised due to your prison sentence and previous army service, suggesting some level of insight. However, you reportedly told the panel of the guilt you feel over Zoe’s death and stated “If I hadn’t met Paula [partner at the time] we would not have been living in Pepper Place [army quarters in Warminster] and if I had died [during his time in the army]everything afterwards would not have happened.” (2025 Decision Letter, p.8 para 2.7), which appears to conflict with your stance of innocence. In respect of the completion of work with the HMPPS psychologist, [he] has stated “I still have feelings of guilt but I use the tools Sian gave me. I am more accepting I should not feel guilty about it; I am kinder to myself and I remember the good things.” (2025 Decision Letter, p.8 para 2.8). You are assessed as posing a high risk of causing serious harm to children, a medium risk of causing serious harm to known adults, and a low risk of causing such harm to members of the public. The risk to children (through physical harm and emotional trauma) is assessed as high based upon the nature of the index offence involving the death of a child and continued lack of understanding around the motivations and triggers of your offending behaviour. Though the risk is not considered to be imminent as it is assessed potential child victims need to be known to you in a familial context. The panel also found that your risk in the community (including on ROTL in the community) would not be imminent. The important caveat is the uncertainty about risk factors which may not have been identified or addressed, as a result of your maintenance of innocence, which means that the full extent to which your risk may have been addressed is uncertain.”
“On review of the evidence the Secretary of State is of the view that your risk has not reduced to a level that is manageable in open conditions and in the community via ROTL and therefore cannot find that the first criteria is met. It is acknowledged that you have demonstrated positive custodial behaviour throughout your sentence, with no evidence of any violence and it does not appear you are sexually preoccupied. Neither, from a review of the evidence, have you expressed any unhealthy sexual interests or behaved in any inappropriate manner, though such evidence must be considered in the context of your long-term residence in a closed prison. The Secretary of State however, does have great concern regarding your stance of innocence and not taking responsibility for the murder of Zoe Evans. Denial of guilt will always be a relevant and significant risk factor, however it cannot operate as an automatic bar for release or progression which is recognised. In you case however there seems to be inconsistencies in your account. Previously you have admitted to the murder (2002), before retracting your confession, and have stated you have guilt in relation to Zoe’s death and, as stated above, if you had died in the army “everything afterwards would not have happened”; the Secretary of State’s interpretation of this is that if you had died, you would not have been able to murder Zoe. The Secretary of State is of the view that you should remain in closed conditions to embark on further work in respect of the index offence and to further explore your inconsistent stance of innocence, regarding the murder of Zoe. This exploration may then result in further risk factors being identified and therefore further risk related work to complete, prior to you progressing to a less secure prison establishment with access to the community via ROTL. This would provide professionals with a better understanding of your risks and how to manage them.”
“Given the inconsistent accounts with regard to your stance of innocence, and the implications of this on your risk management plan as well as the impact of this on report writers understanding of the triggers to your offending, and your risks more generally, the Secretary of State finds there is not a wholly persuasive case to transfer you to open conditions. For the avoidance of doubt, the Secretary of State considers the second limb of the test, relevant to the risk of abscond, to be met. The Secretary of State therefore confirms that it is necessary for you to remain in a closed prison environment and continue to work towards evidencing a reduction in your risk in preparation for your next parole review. You are encouraged to work with staff supervising you to understand what is required of you in the lead up to your next review to assist your progression and to explore the options available to you.”
“2. Before recommending the transfer of an ISP to open conditions, the Parole Board must consider:- i. all information before it, including any written or oral evidence obtained by the Board; ii. whether the following criteria are met: • the prisoner has made sufficient progress during the sentence in addressing and reducing risk to a level consistent with protecting the public from harm (in circumstances where the prisoner in open conditions may be in the community, unsupervised under licensed temporary release); and • the prisoner is assessed as presenting a low risk of abscond. 3. The Parole Board must recommend a move to open conditions only where it is satisfied that the two criteria (as described at 2(ii)) are met.”
“i) The prisoner has made sufficient progress during the sentence in addressing and reducing risk to a level consistent with protecting the public from harm (in circumstances where the prisoner in open conditions may be in the community unsupervised under licensed temporary release); and ii) The prisoner is assessed as a low risk of abscond; and iii) There is a wholly persuasive case for transferring the ISP from closed to open conditions.”
“6. Open prisons are designed for individuals who have progressed to a stage where they are trusted to be able to manage more independently and with less supervision than in closed conditions. The levels of staffing in open prisons are much lower; there is often minimal physical and procedural security. The emphasis is on creating a pro-social prisoner population, in preparation for release. Prisoners may be released on temporary licence to take part in paid placements, community work and resettlement activities, including time with family, potentially unsupervised.”
“33. The decision of the SoS is amenable to challenge by way of judicial review on the ground of irrationality. The relevant question is whether the SoS's decision to reject the Board's advice on the basis that it is not "wholly persuasive" is impeachable on public law grounds, not whether the Board's recommendation is open to criticism on similar or analogous grounds.” 34. The test of rationality or, as it is more accurately described, unreasonableness, is whether or not the SoS has acted in a way which was not reasonably open to him. Reasonableness in this context has two aspects: i) whether the decision was outside the range of reasonable decisions open to the decision-maker; and ii) whether there is a demonstrable flaw in the reasoning which led to the decision (see the helpful analysis in R (Law Society) v Lord Chancellor[2018] EWHC 2094 (Admin) ;[2019] 1 WLR 1649 at [98] ). 35. The reasonableness of the SoS's decision must be assessed in context, for rationality is not determined in the abstract. The central context is the legislative scheme identified above. The assessment of reasonableness will of course involve scrutiny of the SoS's approach to the Board's advice, and whether that advice was given due consideration and weight. But it is important not to be prescriptive as to the precise approach that will be reasonable in every case.”
“36... In general, the weight that the SoS ought reasonably to give to the findings or assessments of the Board is likely to vary according to whether or not the finding or assessment was one in respect of which the Board held a particular advantage over the SoS. Thus, disagreement by the SoS with a finding of credibility made by the Board after a hearing involving oral evidence may be difficult to defend as reasonable. By contrast, disagreement with the Board's assessment of risk associated with a transfer to open conditions may readily fall within the range of reasonable decisions open to the SoS. Put very simply, the greater the advantage enjoyed by the Board over the SoS on any particular issue, the less likely a decision of the SoS to depart from that finding or assessment will be rational. But what is and is not reasonable will turn on the facts of each case.”
“66. None of this is to undermine the importance or value of the work of the Board as an expert adviser to the SoS on the question of prisoner transfer to open conditions, when called upon. The SoS must consider the advice of the Board with care and accord it such weight as is appropriate, given the nature, extent and context of the Board's findings and recommendations. But the statutory scheme is clear: the SoS is the sole decision maker, and the Board acts as adviser. The Board's advice is not binding on the SoS, who has his own independent expertise; nor does the SoS have to identify error or deficiency in the Board's findings or reasoning in order to disagree with the Board's recommendation. What is required of the SoS on the ultimate question of whether to transfer a prisoner into open conditions is a rational, that is to say reasonable, decision in all the circumstances.”