“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.”
“2.43. The panel noted that [the COM] and [the POM] agree that core risk reduction work remains outstanding to address victim empathy, consequential thinking, problem solving skills and conflict resolution and willingness to use violence. [One of the prison psychologists] concluded that the outstanding work required would be core risk reduction work if [the Applicant] was involved in the illicit prison economy and had assaulted Prisoner X as a means of debt enforcement, but would be consolidation work if he had instead been selling canteen and assaulted Prisoner X as part of a game. As referred to above, the panel concluded that there was insufficient evidence to conclude at this stage that [the Applicant] was involved in the illicit prison economy. The panel concluded on the balance of probabilities, however, that [the Applicant] assaulted Prisoner X as a means of debt enforcement. The panel concluded that, despite being under the increased scrutiny of an extended Parole Review, when [the Applicant] found himself in financial need (whether employed or not), he acted in breach of prison rules by selling canteen and that, at least in the case of Prisoner X, he enforced the debts owed by other prisoners by the use of violence. Accordingly, [the psychologist’s] 2 alternatives did not fit the findings of the panel. 2.44. The panel carefully considered all the evidence. In light of [the Applicant’s] recall offences, his own description of his behaviour in the community and his behaviour in custody regarding the selling of canteen and the assault on Mr X, the panel was driven to the conclusion that the outstanding work is core risk reduction work. The panel concluded that [the Applicant’s] behaviour demonstrates the absence of internal controls. He struggles to maintain “New Me” thinking and resorts to “Old Me” behaviours driven by the need for financial gain. In particular, the panel concluded that his behaviours evidence that his risk factors remain active and unaddressed. The panel accepted that risk might be reduced if [the Applicant] was in employment and if he had secure accommodation. The panel was not confident, however, that [the Applicant] would be able to maintain his “New Me” if he did not have a job or accommodation or was mixing with negative peers. His custodial behaviour evidences that he continues to mix with negative peers, breach rules and use violence to enforce debts owed to him. His recall offence is evidence that if he is under financial strain he defaults to his old methods of violent acquisitive offending. 2.45. Taking account of all the evidence, the panel was unable to conclude that there is evidence of a significant reduction in risk. The panel concluded that core risk reduction work remains outstanding that must be completed in Closed Conditions.”