“[The Applicant] told the Panel he was considering not having a phone at all, because he felt so infringed by the condition; he went on to say he had considered saying he would prefer to stay in prison because there are less controls. The Panel fed back that this seemed remnant (sic) of his attitude of ‘cutting off his nose to spite his face’, but he denied this was the case. From the Panel’s perspective monitoring of [The Applicant’s] devices would be necessary and proportionate to manage use of social media, monitor his relationships with women and to ensure he is not using it as a tool to monitor someone’s movements.”
“ There must have been a mistake as to an existing fact, including a mistake as to the availability of evidence on a particular matter; the fact or evidence must have been ‘established’, in the sense that it was uncontentious and objectively verifiable; the appellant (or his advisors) must not have been responsible for the mistake; and the mistake must have played a material (though not necessarily decisive) part in the Tribunal's reasoning.”
“If [the Applicant] was to be GPS tagged he told the Panel that he would not go to many “social places” to “avoid people knowing his business” - this would put him in a “tricky situation”
“[The Applicant] went on to say that he had talked to the POM and COM1 about the proposals and had asked [COM1] to withdraw them. He had not had to sign in for curfews at [designated accommodation] so he did not see why he should be asked to sign in at 3pm and he continued to question the proportionality and necessity of the proposed conditions. In fact, he disagreed with the 3pm sign in proposed at the hostel.”
“ Significantly, [the Applicant] told the Panel in January 2022 that he was not rigid and was able to approach things in a calm and respectful manner. He cited the example of last being rigid when it was perceived that he had an issue with a former COM around 2017. [The Applicant] went into a large amount of detail about an incident in 2017 when someone had attacked him and then he had been expected to remain on a wing with the same person which he did not think was appropriate. There had then been a mix up with [a Probation Service report] which he had not felt the COM at the time had taken seriously so he had put in a complaint, but this COM had gone on to produce two further [Probation Service reports]. This situation had then also contributed to his refusal to engage with [a behavioural monitoring regime] as he felt that information from this COM had been included in the assessment. While to the Panel his approach to describing all the above came across as grievance thinking [the Applicant] maintained that he had dealt with the complaints above in the correct way and he was justified in doing so. ”
“If an offender poses no risk, the protection of the public will not require his confinement. That does not mean the Board is to ignore anything other than immediate or imminent risk…”