"The statutory test to be applied by the Board when considering whether a prisoner should be released does not entail a balancing exercise where the risk to the public is weighed against the benefits of release to the prisoner. The exclusive question for the Board when applying the test for release in any context is whether the prisoner's release would cause a more than minimal risk of serious harm to the public."
" the Board has to be positively satisfied that continued detention is necessary in the public interest if it is to avoid concluding it is no longer necessary "
"It is true that in his judgment in [ Sim ] (with which the other members of the Court agreed) Keene LJ used the word presumption, saying that the presumption of an extended sentence being passed "is that during the extension period the offender need not be in custody."
"If after hearing all the evidence the Board remains genuinely unsure whether the prisoner needs to be detained or not, ... the prisoner in that situation would be at liberty."
"The Board has to be positively satisfied that continued detention is necessary in the public interest if it is to avoid concluding that it is no longer necessary."
"A more nuanced approach in modern public law is to test the decision-maker's ultimate conclusion against the evidence before it and to ask whether the conclusion can (with due deference and with respect to the panel's expertise) be safely justified on the basis of that evidence, particularly in a context where anxious scrutiny needs to be applied. ... [T]his approach is simply another way of applying Lord Greene MR's famous dictum in Wednesbury ... but it is preferable in my view to put the test in more practical and structured terms on the following lines: does the conclusion follow from the evidence or is there an unexplained evidential gap or leap in reasoning which fails to justify the conclusion."
" It seems to me generally desirable that the Board should identify in broad terms the matters judged by the Board as pointing towards and against a continuing risk of offending and the Board's reasons for striking the balance that it does. Needless to say, the letter should summarise the considerations which have in fact led to the final decision. It would be wrong to prescribe any standard form of Decision Letter and it would be wrong to require elaborate or impeccable standards of draftsmanship. "
"The panel is of the unanimous view that your immediate release would present an unacceptable risk to the public of further offences being committed and your representations against recall are rejected."
"The Probation service have concerns about Mr Coney's future manageability on licence and in the panel's view this is warranted given that this is his second recall; the first being the result of possessing indecent images of children." "
"The panel concluded that your risk is not manageable in the community for the period remaining until your sentence expires and therefore did not direct your re-release."
"4.1. The panel considered all the written and oral evidence and listened carefully to [the representative's] closing submissions. Through his offending behaviour, [the Applicant] has demonstrated that he is capable of causing serious harm. 4.2. The panel noted his progress, particularly since the last Parole Board review. It is positive that [the Applicant] has undoubtedly started upon a journey to desistance. His positive custodial conduct and his improved relationships with professionals has been taken into consideration, along with all other protective factors that have been identified by witnesses and the panel. 4.3. However, his history of breaching his licence conditions and court orders cannot be discounted and previous lack of compliance cannot be discounted. 4.4. The panel have considered the recommendations of the professional witnesses and there remain concerns, particularly as to outstanding areas of risk, his likely compliance, previous difficulties of openness and honesty with those managing him and his difficulties of reflection and emotional control. 4.5. This panel's main concern is the imminency of risk once in a relationship. Previous external controls of licence conditions and court orders have been insufficient resulting in further offending on licence, and ongoing psychological harm to his partner following his recall. 4.6. The pattern of breaching conditions and risky behaviour adds to a history of intimate partner violence that spans many years. [The Applicant] still does not appear to recognise high risk situations despite having completed offending behaviour programmes. 4.7. Whilst giving [the Applicant] credit for the progress he has made, the panel could not be confident that he would fully comply with the licence conditions in place to protect potential victims from harm and that he had sufficiently developed his internal controls to manage his risk in the community. 4.8. Despite the robust risk management plan proposed the panel was not satisfied that it was no longer necessary for the protection of the public that [the Applicant] remain confined. The panel therefore do not direct his release."
"There is no basis on which to accept the supposition that the Parole Board failed to appreciate that they were dealing with an extended prisoner past the custodial period ... There is no suggestion in the reasons of the Parole Board that they failed to recommend his release because he had failed to discharge any burden of proof. On the contrary, the Parole Board noted all the information before them and reached a conclusion, which although not identical in language to the formulation of the Court of Appeal in Sim , is to the same effect."