“[T]he panel did not consider that evidence from Dr O was required in order for it to make a fair assessment of risk. His report was completed over a year ago and the panel has no specific questions arising from it. The report from Dr A ([a psychiatrist] commissioned by [the Applicant’s] solicitor) was more recent and comprehensive and the panel was content that it would be satisfied by hearing Dr A’s evidence. [The Applicant] and his legal representative … accepted the panel’s decision and agreed to proceed with the oral hearing. They also raised the fact that [the Applicant’s] Community Offender Manager [COM] … was not in attendance and was being represented by [a stand-in COM] who had no previous involvement in the case. [The Applicant] has consistently refused to work with [his local] Probation Service and had not agreed to attend interviews with his COM …, who therefore has never met him. [The stand-in COM] confirmed that she had read the dossier thoroughly and spoken with [the COM] and felt confident that she would be able to assist the panel in its assessment of risk. All parties agreed to proceed with the ‘stand-in’ COM. A further issue arose on the day in that the independent psychologist … had laryngitis.”
“[The independent psychologist] agreed with [the POM, the prison psychologist] and Dr O that [whilst the work necessary to make her confident that the Applicant’s risk could be safely managed could in theory be carried out in open conditions] it would be more likely to be achieved in closed conditions, although even this could not be guaranteed.”