“ The decision of the Parole Board was irrational in that the clear evidence of professional and trained risk assessors was undermined by unproven allegations made both orally and in writing by the Police. In addition the Parole Board purported to make a finding of fact without a proper investigation of all the available evidence.”
“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.”
“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.”
“4.5. There have been no convictions of violence or further offending since the Parole Board last directed his release. However, after very careful consideration and much deliberation of all of the written and oral evidence available to it, surrounding the allegations of attempted murder/serious assault against BD, the panel is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, there is sufficient evidence that [the Applicant] was involved in the serious assault against BD in June 2018.” “4.6. BD was seriously assaulted with a knife left embedded in his face; there is evidence that the vehicle, identified by CCTV and with corroborating damage from the incident, was in the immediate vicinity of the assault; that vehicle is unequivocally connected to [the Applicant] - it belongs to a company he works for and he is insured to drive it; the victim provided two witness statements positively naming [the Applicant] as responsible for the attack (since retracted); the victim’s sister provided a corroborating witness statement positively naming [the Applicant] as involved in the attack on her brother (since retracted); [the Applicant’s] fingerprint was on the door of the victim’s car; circumstantial evidence that he fled the country when told he was wanted for questioning by police after the assault, which hindered the investigation and prevented him from being questioned by police; he was unlawfully at large and therefore avoided detection by the police until after retraction statements had been submitted by the victim and his family members. In addition to the victim making retraction statements and not supporting a conviction, it is hugely concerning to the panel that, the other main reason that the case investigation was stopped by police was to protect BD and potentially his family from further serious harm.” … “4.8. After hearing evidence directly from [the Applicant], the panel consider that he shows motivation and determination to comply and to continue to make positive changes and succeed in having a pro-social life in the community and found his desire not to be returned to custody genuine. However, the panel was not persuaded by the credibility of [the Applicant’s] evidence at times, particularly regarding the suggested reasons why BD would accuse him of the assault, why he travelled to France, that he did not know the vehicle he was driving had a knife in the driver’s door pocket upon his apprehension and why he was in close proximity to the location of the serious attack on BD 11 weeks later when apprehended by police and why he leaked the victim’s statement on social media.” “4.9. The panel agrees with the professional witnesses and considers the risk management plan to be comprehensive, however the panel does not consider that his risks can be managed in the community, taking into account the finding of fact and extent of evidence linking his involvement to serious violence and negative associates whilst in the community previously. The panel has particular concerns that risk factors regarding lifestyle and associates and a willingness to use violence and weapons were present when he was in the community prior to his recall in 2018.” “4.10. It was evident to the panel that his COM has a good grasp of his case, that [the Applicant] would also be subject to close monitoring by police and that the licence conditions would be enforced. However, the panel is concerned as to [the Applicant’s] likely compliance when in the community - despite knowing he was wanted by police for a serious offence, he left the country, he was recalled, did not have contact with the Probation Service and he was unlawfully at large for 11 weeks.” “4.11. The panel considers that in light of the evidence and finding that he was involved in the serious assault against BD, that potentially further work to address healthy identity, lifestyle and associates and a willingness to use weapons and violence would be appropriate.”