"Your ability to be open and honest is to your credit; such openness will assist the effectiveness of future supervision sessions. "
"The panel had the benefit of a police report about this incident .... The panel took the view that there was sufficient material upon which to reach a conclusion on the basis that there was a fairly detailed police report and the police had deployed a body-worn camera to corroborate their report. Neither the panel nor [the Applicant] had seen the video. However the panel took the view that on the balance of probabilities the police report was likely to be a reflection of the contents of the body-worn camera. The facts as recorded by the police were that around midnight the police had received an emergency call from Ms L's home. The call had come from her 15 year old son. The son reported an argument and the call-taker noted that a disturbance could be heard in the background. Upon arrival the police reported that shouting could be heard upstairs and windows were wide open. The front door was locked. After repeated knocking the door was answered by Ms L. The police reported that she looked afraid but said nothing. The police were allowed to enter and observed [the Applicant] who had blood on his face, on his eyebrow and on his nose. He told the police he was okay. He was asked how he got the injuries and he said he had fallen on the way home after he had been out drinking with Ms L. Ms L was asked what had happened and she said that there had been an argument: [the Applicant] had accused her of having men round and she wanted him to leave but he wouldn't. She wanted him removed by the police. The police observed facial injuries to Ms L and asked how they had occurred. Ms L did not reply and looked down. The injuries were reported to be a cut or graze across the bridge of the nose, swelling between the eyebrows, and bruising below her eyes. When asked again Ms L said she did not know how she got the injuries. She then said that she also had fallen over. She said that a babysitter had spent half an hour with [the Applicant] and Ms L when they had got back from being out. The babysitter had left an hour and half before the police arrived. Ms L said that the babysitter would be able to confirm seeing [the Applicant's] injuries, but not hers. Ms L then said that she was concerned for the safety of the (female) police officer who was with [the Applicant] at the time. [The Applicant] was reportedly shouting. The police said that Ms L looked nervous and frightened. Ms L's son was asked about what had happened, he said his mother and [the Applicant] had been shouting. [The Applicant] had 'started on' his mother and then ['started on him as well.'] He said that his mother and others had been in the bedroom and [the Applicant] was trying to force his way in. He said that at some point [the Applicant] and his mother were in a bedroom together and that he heard something like someone had fallen over and he heard his mother cry out. The police then reported that [the Applicant], when being arrested and taken away, resisted arrest and became violent which necessitated the police calling further units. During this altercation with the police [the Applicant] was alleged to be calling a female officer [unpleasant names]."
"In no way was [the Applicant] being physical towards me that night like the police are saying. He was verbally aggressive due to too much alcohol which I told them when they were questioning me that night. I told them I will not be pressing charges as [the Applicant] did not assault me in any way. I have now heard that the police are saying that I had marks on me and saying it was [the Applicant]. That is not true at all. I was covered in mud from me and [the Applicant] falling over on the way home from bowling that night which I told the police about and that was it. My friend [Ms E] was round that night as she had been babysitting and came again the next day and at no point did she witness any marks on me ... [The Applicant] would never act the way he did that night had he not been drunk... The only blips he has are down to drinking and he knows that is the only problem. I believe this has been handled so wrong by the police and probation. He did nothing that night to deserve to be recalled to prison."
"The panel carefully considered the evidence in this case. The accepted evidence from [the Applicant] was that there had been a verbal altercation that was clearly an aggressive altercation given the fact that the police had been called and on the strength of the behaviour of [the Applicant] once the police arrived. The panel were concerned that Ms L had visible injuries. The panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there were injuries and indeed this was accepted by [the Applicant]. There was no direct evidence as to how those injuries had occurred. However a crucial factor so far as the panel were concerned was the fact that Ms L indicated clearly to the police that when Ms L and [the Applicant] arrived home the babysitter would have observed his injuries, but would not be able to account for her injuries. By implication Ms L did not have injuries when she first arrived home. [My emphasis] So far as the panel were concerned this was a crucial admission. Coupled with the calling of the police and the [Applicant's] aggressive behaviour the panel concluded on the balance of probabilities that the injuries had occurred as a result of an altercation with [the Applicant]. The panel were unable to come to a conclusion as to whether it was a direct application of force or some injury resulting from a scuffle or altercation of another sort. However the injuries numbered more than one and therefore were of concern. The panel rejected the evidence of [the Applicant], namely that the injuries occurred on the way home by way of a fall. The panel took the view that if Ms L had been injured on her way home from the venue she would have immediately told the police that the babysitter could confirm the injuries on both parties, rather than specifically say that the babysitter could only confirm injuries to [the Applicant]. For this reason the panel reached a conclusion, on balance, that injuries occurred to Ms L as a result of an altercation and the behaviour of [the Applicant]."
" The decision was returned within 3 days; therefore, I believe that the panel have not taken the care and attention in considering all of the evidence in such a short space of time ."
" I feel that the panel chair has taken responses to the questions unfairly and was then biased in the decision. I also felt that the both panel members had a personal issue with me and I don't feel that they even read the written references that were provided and the written evidence from [Ms L] in terms of what occurred on the day in question Finally, I feel that the panel members were biased. I felt under pressured and rushed during my evidence, and as a result was unable to give good evidence as I have done before."
"We needed to go through that because we have a legal duty to do so. I know it's upsetting for you to be challenged but we have a legal duty to do it."
"In relation to the incident which led to [the Applicant's] recall was that the panel were satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Ms L was injured after an incident involving violent behaviour by [the Applicant]. The exact process of being injured is not ascertainable, however the panel found that the injuries were attributable to [the Applicant's] behaviour. Arising from that finding the panel had substantial concerns about [the Applicant's] insight into his own behaviour, and further are concerned about the risk to Ms L who, the panel determine, feels constrained [not] to be open about [the Applicant's] behaviour,( a common occurrence with partners in Ms L's position)."
"As stated, the POM and COM were both recommending release under robust RMP (Risk Management Plan), to which there was a contingency in place of an AP (Approved Premises) but this was not spoken about in any depth with the COM during evidence. It was confirmed in the decision that the RMP was robust but then the Panel provided contradictory remarks saying [risk] cannot be managed under that same RMP."
"The panel considered the clear recommendations of both the POM and the COM that risk could be managed. The Panel disagreed with their assessment of the ability to manage risk in the community. Whilst accepting and applauding [the Applicant's] exemplary behaviour in custody, the panel were not persuaded that this element of his behaviour was helpful in terms of assessing his management of the risk of domestic violence. The panel took the view that [the POM] had relied too heavily on reports of a good work ethic and general good behaviour in custody. There had been little emphasis on the issue of relationships and addressing these problems. The panel understood that [the POM] felt unable to address these issues because of [the Applicant's] denial of any relationship issues, however the panel were not constrained by the absence of a court conviction or by denial, and took the view that there was insufficient evidence of [the Applicant] addressing the issue of relationships and domestic violence. The panel noted not only the behaviour which led to the recall, but also a pattern of behaviour which began when [the Applicant] was a young man and has continued intermittently throughout his adult life, with various reports, set out in the dossier, of violent incidents in the presence of or directed towards partners. So far as the recommendation of [the COM] was concerned, again the panel took the view that the absence of a court conviction, coupled with [the Applicant's] denial, too heavily influenced the recommendation. [The COM] accepted that a behavioural intervention was required, he felt that [the Applicant] needed to be motivated over time into accepting the need. [The COM] was understandably sceptical of the value of an intervention until [the Applicant] gained insight into the presenting difficulty. Whilst the panel fully endorse the fact that undertaking interventions, without a commitment to or acceptance of the issue, is likely to be limited in value, the panel is obliged to consider the public interest rather than the interests of [the Applicant]. The panel took the view that [the Applicant] had not, as at the date of the hearing, sufficiently addressed his risk of serious harm to partners and that further work, in addition to alcohol intervention, was required. The panel's view was that until [the Applicant] was able to demonstrate that his risk was understood by him and others and that he had acquired techniques and learning to address those risks, the risk of serious harm to the public (particularly partners) remained at a level that the panel deemed it was necessary in order to protect the public from serious harm, that he remain confined."
"Of some concern to the panel was not only the fact that the evidence on the balance of probabilities indicated [the Applicant's] responsibility but the important fact that [he] was not able to accept responsibility for his behaviour and importantly accept that there may exist an issue of his inability to control his emotions and his violence towards partners. The panel would reiterate that [the Applicant] himself accepted fully that his use of alcohol was damaging to himself and to those around him. [He] attributes all of the difficulties and problems with relationships to the alcohol use. [He] was asked by the panel whether he felt that in addition to alcohol use he had difficulty with controlling his emotions in relationships. He was asked, why, when he had taken an excess of alcohol, the outcome of that alcohol misuse often resulted in harm or distress to female partners. [He] firmly indicated that the issue was entirely associated with alcohol and not with any issues relating to managing relationships, jealousy, or the like."
"The panel considered the suggested risk factors in the earlier decision to release [the Applicant]. The panel took the view that clearly the primary risk factor was alcohol. This was evidenced by a long history of incidents with alcohol misuse as a background. Also of concern is the issue of poor emotional self-management which may be the background to difficulties with partners and in relationships. The panel took the view that a current risk factor is the minimisation of difficulties in relationships and an inability to accept the possibility that alcohol misuse was not the entire answer to the incidents and difficulties that have occurred in the past."