“[The Applicant] blames the prison for return[ing] to the closed estate rather than accepting that this arose as a result of [the Applicant’s] own decisions. The panel considered that this is a clear example of poor decision making, entitlement thinking, poor responsibility taking and a lack of insight. These tendencies are further evident, along with rigid thinking, in [the Applicant’s] refusal to complete any consolidation work in the closed estate. Had [the Applicant] taken the opportunity to engage with the offered sessions they would be in a much stronger position with regard to progression. The panel did not accept that the previous panel had directed that 12 sessions of consolidation work must be undertaken in the open estate. In essence there has been no substantive positive change and progress since the last panel set out why [the Applicant] did not meet the test for release in November 2020. Indeed, following failure in open conditions, some of the risk related concerns identified by that panel have been increased. While [the Applicant] has demonstrated some good coping skills since return[ing] to the closed estate, the fact that [the Applicant] has not undertaken the consolidation work, deliberately chose not to comply with the [Enhanced Behaviour Monitoring conditions in the open prison], and has consistently displayed rigid thinking, all add weight to the outstanding risk factors set out by the previous panel.”
“ 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.”