“His record suggests he struggles to manage his feelings and act in a non-violent and appropriate manner. He has demonstrated in his offending a capacity to use extreme violence to exert control in situations where he feels emotionally charged. This, combined with significant alcohol misuse in the community, has meant that [the Applicant] has an established pattern of violent offending within intimate relationships and beyond.”
“The issue is whether the release decision was so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it.”
“It is submitted that the decision not to release [the Applicant] was irrational based on the evidence before the Panel because insufficient consideration was given to various factors which greatly reduce and/or otherwise impact his risk factors. It is also submitted that there is an insistence to stick to previous Panel decisions rather than looking at the case afresh and in light of developments since the last review. The following elements are relied on:- “[The decision lists] risk factors prevalent in [the Applicant’s] life at the time of the index offence (and other previous offending) and conclude that should they be present again, they might increase his likelihood/motivation/frequency to re-offend. It is submitted that too much weight was given to these risk factors given that the index offence was committed 30 years ago, his long term serious health issues and his long term good behaviour in custody. “[The Applicant] is now 72 years of age and suffers with constant leg pain and severely impaired mobility due to a football injury many years ago, as well as varicose veins in both legs. He walks with a stick and can manage a maximum of 100 yards ‘on a good day’. [He] takes 13 tablets per day which include treatment for low blood pressure, high cholesterol and depression. He has been suffering with dizzy spells since an illness which resulted in hospitalisation… and finds these are becoming more frequent with a fall happening usually every day. [He] has shown himself to be content in his own company spending the majority of his time in his cell listening to music and reading. “In light of these factors too much weight was given to risk factors which may well have existed in [the Applicant’s] life some 30 years ago but now either do not exist or are greatly reduced and there is little evidence to suggest they may return on release or will not be ‘noticed and addressed under the risk management plan’. These factors include pro-criminal attitudes, alcohol misuse, intimate relationships, sexual jealousy, lack of employment or meaningful activity. There is no contact with his past which may raise concerns about former partners. “… it is submitted that the 1:1 work completed by [the Applicant] recently has not been given sufficient regard nor has the need to treat each prisoner as an individual and find alternative ways of reducing risk for some … The 1:1 work was spoken very highly of by his COM and POM. It is submitted the panel were wrong to dismiss it as merely a ‘stepping stone’ to further intensive work. The POM felt no further core risk reduction work was required and it is submitted that if the result has been achieved it should not matter that it was not through the previously recommended route of group work. “It should also be noted that… the panel confirmed they agreed with the various risk assessments which range from low probability of re-offending to high risk of serious harm to the public. Given that the overall risk of re-offending and serious recidivism is low it is submitted the RMP was clearly sufficient to manage any risk [the Applicant] did pose to the public on release.”
“The offending behaviour work undertaken during his almost 30 years in custody has been extremely limited, yet it is not considered by professionals that there is any outstanding core risk reduction work. The panel disagrees. The 2022 panel expressed itself quite satisfied that core risk reduction work remained to be done and did not accept it could not be done in a group setting if he wished it to. [The Applicant] told the current panel he would undertake group work. He had done no material core offence related work since 2001 and what he did before then was insufficient for the purposes of reducing his risk. The current panel agreed with the 2022 panel’s assessment. It did not regard the recent and ongoing 1:1 work with the POM as adequate to address the breadth and intensity of his treatment needs and outstanding risks of violence. At best it is a stepping stone towards further more intense work and may have enhanced his motivation and relationships with professionals.”
“[The Applicant’s] positive and settled conduct in the controlled prison environment is to his credit but is of limited assistance when assessing his risk in the community and particularly within an intimate relationship or following the breakdown of a relationship. Sadly, in evidence [the Applicant] was unable to demonstrate any understanding of the motivation and triggers for the index offence or articulate his learning from the recent 1:1 work or explain his past behaviour. There was no indication that he would be able to manage his risk by identifying problematic situations and triggers and dealing with them.”