Ryder, Application for Reconsideration [2024] PBRA 172 (06 September 2024) [2024] PBRA 172

PBRA

Ryder, Application for Reconsideration [2024] PBRA 172 (06 September 2024)

[2024] PBRA 172 · 2024-07-22

[1]This is an application by Ryder (‘the Applicant’) for reconsideration of a decision of the Parole Board (‘the Board’) not to direct his release on licence. The decision was made by a 3-member panel of the Board (‘the panel’) on 22 July 2024 following an oral hearing on 15 July 2024. The Applicant is serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection (‘IPP’) for offences of rape, inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent and attempting to pervert the course of justice (‘the index offences’). The details of those offences will be described below.

[2]Rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended by the Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2022) provides that applications for reconsideration of panel decisions may be made, either by the prisoner or by the Secretary of State for Justice, in eligible cases. The Secretary of State is the Respondent to any reconsideration application made by a prisoner, and will be referred to as such in this decision.

[3]Rule 28(2) specifies the types of cases in which reconsideration applications may be made. They include cases, like the Applicant’s, where the prisoner is serving a sentence of IPP.

[4]A reconsideration application may be made on the ground(a) that the panel’s decision contains an error of law and/or

(b) that it is irrational and/or

[5]An application for reconsideration on the ground of irrationality has been made by the Applicant’s solicitors within the prescribed time limit. It is therefore an eligible case.

[6]I am one of the members of the Board who are authorised (as Reconsideration Panels) to make decisions on reconsideration applications, and this case has been allocated to me. I have considered the application on the papers.

[7]The documents which have been provided to me and which I have considered for the purposes of this application are:(a) The dossier of papers provided by the Respondent for the Applicant’s hearing, the dossier now runs to 486 numbered pages and includes the panel’s decision;

(b) The representations made by the Applicant’s solicitors in support of the application for reconsideration; and

(c) An e-mail from the Public Protection Casework Section (‘PPCS’) of the Ministry of Justice stating on behalf of the Respondent that he does not wish to submit any representations in response to this application. Background and history of the case

[8]The Applicant is aged 37. From childhood he has had various mental health and personality difficulties. He was before the courts on a number of occasions from the age of 13 for a number of offences (including offences of violence). He was aged 19 when he committed the index offences.

[9]The index offences were succinctly described in the panel’s decision. The Applicant broke into the house of a woman who lived opposite him in the middle of the night. She was asleep upstairs in bed. He raped her with her 3 year old son asleep next to her. Her young daughter was sleeping in an adjoining bedroom. Her son woke up and saw the Applicant smash his mother in the face with a trainer so hard that it broke her jaw and fractured her eye socket. She also lost teeth. He compounded matters whilst on remand in prison by persuading another prisoner to write a letter (supposedly from the victim) in an attempt to extricate himself from the rape charge.

[10]He pleaded guilty to the charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice and was convicted after a contested trial on the other charges. He was sentenced to IPP with a minimum term (‘tariff’) of 5 years and 11 months less the time which he had served in custody on remand. His tariff expired in July 2012.

[11]For 3 years during his sentence he was detained in a psychiatric hospital, but he was returned to the prison system after absconding from an unescorted leave from the hospital. After absconding he remained unlawfully at large for about 3 weeks.

[12]He committed a number of offences of violence or aggression during his time in prison and in the psychiatric hospital. Most of those offences were dealt with by disciplinary proceedings but two resulted in criminal convictions (for common assault and damaging prison property).

[13]On 9 May 2023 he was released on licence, by direction of the Parole Board, to a specialist probation hostel (a ‘PIPE AP’). His behaviour in the AP appears to have been generally acceptable but he was recalled to prison on 26 May 2023 as a result of what were said to be breaches of his licence conditions. Those will be discussed below.

[14]After the Applicant’s recall to prison his case was referred by the Respondent to the Board to decide whether to direct his re-release on licence, and in due course it was decided that the case should proceed to an oral hearing.

[15]During his time in prison after his recall he committed a number of offences which were dealt with by disciplinary proceedings. Some at least of those were evidently due to the fact that he was not given the medication which he had been prescribed for his mental health and personality difficulties. They will be discussed below.

[16]As noted above the oral hearing took place on 15 July 2024. It was conducted remotely by video link. The Applicant was legally represented. The panel comprised a Judicial Chair, a Psychologist and an Independent Member.

[17]The panel considered both written and oral evidence. The written evidence was contained in the dossier of papers provided by the Respondent, which at that stage ran to page 474. Oral evidence was given by the following witnesses: - The Applicant’s stand-in Prison Offender Manager (‘POM’); - The Applicant himself; and - The Applicant’s Community Offender Manager (‘COM’).

[18]The COM supported re-release on licence. The stand-in POM did not. The panel decided against re-release on licence. They also decided not to recommend to the Respondent that the Applicant should be moved to an open prison. The decision not to direct re-release on licence is eligible for reconsideration, but the decision not to recommend a move to an open prison is not (see below). The Relevant Law The test for re-release on licence

[19]The test for re-release on licence is whether the Applicant’s continued confinement in prison is necessary for the protection of the public. The rules relating to reconsideration of decisions

[20]Under Rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended in 2022) a decision is eligible for reconsideration if (but only if) it is a decision that the prisoner is or is not suitable for release on licence. The grounds on which an application may be made are as set out above (error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness). A decision not to recommend a move to an open prison is not eligible for reconsideration.

[21]A decision that a prisoner is or is not suitable for release on licence is eligible for reconsideration whether it is made by:(i) A paper panel (Rule 19(1)(a) or (b)) or

(ii) An oral hearing panel after an oral hearing, as in this case (Rule 25(1)) or

(iii) An oral hearing panel which makes the decision on the papers (Rule 21(7)). The test for irrationality

[22]The power of the courts to interfere with a decision of a competent public authority on the ground of irrationality was defined in Associated Provincial Houses Ltd -v- Wednesbury Corporation 1948 1 KB 223 by Lord Greene as follows:

“ if a decision on a competent matter is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it, then the courts can interfere”

. The Parole Board is a public authority for that purpose, and the Wednesbury test therefore applies to applications to the High Court for judicial review of a panel’s decision. It also applies to applications to Reconsideration Panels of the Board for reconsideration on the ground of irrationality.

[23]In R (DSD and others) -v- the Parole Board

2018 EWHC 694

(Admin) (‘the Worboys case’) a Divisional Court applied this test to parole board decisions in these words:

“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. ”

The same test of course applies to ‘no release’ decisions.

[24]In R (on the application of Wells) -v- Parole Board

2019 EWHC 2710

(Admin) Mr Justice Saini set out what he described as a more nuanced approach in modern public law. This approach 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 regard 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)”

. This formulation of the test was adopted by a Divisional Court in the case of R (on the application of the Secretary of State for Justice) -v- the Parole Board

2022 EWHC 1282

(Admin).

[25]As was made clear by Mr Justice Saini, this is not a different test from the Wednesbury test. The interpretation of (and application of) the Wednesbury test in parole hearings (as explained in the Wednesbury and DSD cases) was of course binding on Mr Justice Saini. It is similarly binding on Reconsideration Panels.

[26]It follows from these principles that in considering an application for reconsideration a Reconsideration Panel cannot substitute its own view of the evidence for that of the panel who heard the witnesses. It will only direct reconsideration on the ground of irrationality if the Wednesbury test is satisfied. The request for reconsideration in this case

[27]The application was submitted on 8 August 2024 by the Applicant’s solicitors on his behalf. A number of grounds for a finding of irrationality were set out in the application and will be discussed below. The position of the Respondent

[28]As noted above, as a party to parole proceedings the Respondent is entitled to submit representations to the Board in response to an application by a prisoner for reconsideration of a panel’s decision, but PPCS have indicated on behalf of the Respondent that he does not wish to submit any representations in this case. Discussion

[29]For the purpose of my decision I need to examine the reasons given for the panel for their decision, and the comments made by the solicitors about those reasons.

[30]The matters relied on by the panel in support of their decision fall under the following heads:(1) The Applicant’s behaviour whilst on licence;

(2) His behaviour in prison following his recall;

(3) Concerns about his truthfulness and reliability;

(4) Concerns about his insight into his risks and their management;

(5) Concerns about his ‘internal controls’;

(6) Concerns about whether there would be warning signs if his risk was increasing. I will consider each of these topics in turn. The Applicant’s behaviour whilst on licence

[31]The Applicant was on licence for less than 3 weeks before his recall. The dossier includes the log kept by the staff at the AP where he was residing. The Applicant had some difficulties but managed to cope with them reasonably well. As well as his key worker at the AP he received support from the Chiron Community which is a team of professionals and is part of the ‘OPD Pathway’ designed to support offenders with personality difficulties.

[32]A drug test taken on 17 May 2023 came back positive for opiates. When told that, the Applicant admitted to his key worker that on the day before his release he had been moved to a prison nearer to the AP and whilst there he had taken a dose of opiate medication (Dihydrocodeine). He was thanked for his honesty. When asked by the panel about this he explained that he did not have the medication which was normally prescribed to help him manage his mental health and personality difficulties, and he had obtained the Dihydrocodeine from another prisoner.

[33]On 24 and 25 May 2024 events occurred which led to the Applicant’s recall to prison. The recall report to the Respondent requesting the recall was not made by the Applicant’s then COM (who was on annual leave and was going to be replaced) but by another probation officer. The reasons given in the recall report for requesting a recall were as follows.(1) “It has come to the attention of Probation that [the Applicant] has breached his IPP licence. We were made aware that he had contacted a woman on the 24/05/2023 and met her in the Approved Premises (AP) car park. He contacted her through Facebook on an unknown date. This allowed him to arrange the meeting for the 24/05/2023 in the AP car park. [The Applicant] after meeting her on the 24/05/2023, arranged to meet her on the 25/05/2023 and they went for dinner in a local pub. On arriving at the AP on the evening of the 25/05/2023, he tested positive for alcohol and admitted that he had drunk two pints. [The Applicant] stated to the AP staff that he had intended to tell his Probation Officer on the 24/05/2023 about the developing relationship but did not due to being told he was being reallocated to a new officer (not a justified reason for non-disclosure).”

(2) “Furthermore, we are aware that [the Applicant] has been socialising and drinking alcohol with a fellow AP resident, who is also a Registered Sex Offender. What is concerning is he is drinking alcohol with this individual which will be connected to his risk.”

[34]The panel summarised the Applicant’s evidence to them on these topics as follows:

“[The Applicant] contests his recall. He claimed there was no requirement for him not to drink; that it was not obvious to him that he was mixing with a sex offender; that he was not drinking with a sex offender as alleged; and that he did disclose his contact with a woman. In his account to the panel, [the Applicant] said he had gone to meet [the woman, Ms M] at the train station and they then walked to the AP where they kissed in the car park. He claimed he told his Chiron worker and staff at the AP about her straightaway, but conceded “Maybe I should have told my key worker in advance before I met [Ms M] rather than just bringing her back.”

He said they had grown up together. They had never been in a relationship. They were just old friends. She had messaged him on Facebook, suggesting they met for a drink. He added “Everyone knew I was seeing her.” [The Applicant] said he understood the AP rules allowed a maximum of two pints and he had not exceeded that limit. He said he did not tell his COM about [Ms M] during the video meeting on 25/05/23 because he was not asked. He denied drinking or associating with the sex offender [Mr D]. On his account, when he was at the public house with [Ms M] he saw the person in question drinking with other residents but he did not join them.”

[35]The panel’s observations about this were: “The only area of agreement about the reason for recall is the fact that [the Applicant] did not inform his COM before he met [Ms M] even though he claims he told other people. The COM was correct when she pointed out that it was [the Applicant’s] responsibility to notify the COM direct, and to say he was waiting for a change of COM is not a valid excuse. [The Applicant] did not seem to appreciate the importance of this. Other people would not have full knowledge of his offending so would not be in a position to make full disclosure to [Ms M], which was crucial given the nature of his index offences. By this omission, he demonstrated a lack of sufficient insight into his risks. The panel considered that, on this basis alone, recall was appropriate. Whether or not he considered this to be a relationship is immaterial. He was seen kissing her and he admitted to flirting with her. In the panel’s view even this is sufficient indication of intimacy requiring disclosure to the COM, which might then lead to disclosure to her. There was no licence condition prohibiting consumption of alcohol. There was probably an AP rule but the exact nature of this is not known. Whether or not [the Applicant] was associating with a sex offender from the AP is not clear. [The Applicant] admitted to having dihydrocodeine in his system. [The Applicant] volunteered “I seem to have an answer for everything,” and indeed he reached the point where the panel questioned his credibility. It was clear that he was not accepting responsibility for any of his behaviour."

[36]Although the panel repeatedly referred to the Applicant as ‘ claiming ’ things, his account of what happened was largely supported by the entries made at the time in the AP log by his keyworker. In addition to the Applicant’s disclosures to the key worker about Ms M, he told her that he was aware that he should not associate with fellow residents outside the AP and he had been trying to avoid that but that Mr D had been in the pub when he went in there. There is no mention in the log of the Applicant being told that Mr D was a sex offender or that the Applicant should not associate with him.

[37]The Applicant’s solicitors’ response to the panel’s observations were as follows:

“ … it is stated that the panel questioned [the Applicant’s] credibility referencing that [he] had volunteered during the hearing that “[he seems] to have an answer for everything”

. It is disappointing that the Panel have misinterpreted [the Applicant’s] evidence. During live evidence [he] explained the events that led to his recall, and he acknowledged that there are aspects that he should have handled differently, including informing his COM before he met with [Ms M]. It is not agreed that [the Applicant] does not accept responsibility for any of his behaviour. Contrary to what is stated by the Panel, the COM in her oral evidence stated that she is of the view that [the Applicant] has shown an increased understanding of his risk factors and the importance of engaging with professionals and she stated that she thinks that the recall has cemented to [the Applicant] that he has to ensure that he goes specifically goes to his COM to make disclosures.” I will refer below to a further passage in the solicitors’ representations which specifically addresses the issue of the Applicant’s truthfulness and reliability.

[38]There is a good deal of force in the solicitors’ response and I think there is a significant question mark over the appropriateness of the recall. Several assertions made in the recall report can now be seen to have been wrong. The report stated that the Applicant had breached a licence condition relating to consumption of alcohol, and the panel understandably and correctly (in the light of the evidence summarised above) did not make any finding to that effect. Similarly the report stated that the Applicant had been socialising and drinking with a Registered Sex Offender but there is no evidence to suggest that he knew that that was what Mr D was.

[39]The panel were clearly of the view that the Applicant was in serious breach of the following licence condition:

‘They shall notify the supervising officer of any developing intimate relationships with women, and any deterioration and ending of such relationships’

. This is a notoriously problematic licence condition: it is never easy to say when exactly an intimate relationship is developing. It is good practice, when a prisoner is released on licence, for the COM or another probation officer to spell out precisely what is meant by this particular condition, but there appears to be no evidence that that happened in this case.

[40]If the Applicant’s evidence was correct (and there is no evidence to contradict it) on one view the point had not been reached that there was ‘ a developing intimate relationship ’ between himself and Ms M. He did not, after the event, challenge the COM’s view that he should have notified probation in advance that he was going to meet Ms M, but that does not mean that at the time of the alleged breach he had knowingly breached the condition.

[41]If he was in breach of the condition, I have serious doubts about whether in the unusual circumstances his breach was sufficiently serious to warrant a recall. I note that there was a difference of opinion within probation about whether a request for recall should be made: the original decision was not to instigate a recall but that decision was overruled by the Head of Service for the area in question. It is unclear whether the Head of Service was aware of the full facts: he or she certainly does not seem to have been aware of the inaccuracies in some of the matters stated in the recall report.

[42]The panel’s brief statement that the Applicant had admitted taking dihydrocodeine (before he arrived at the AP) did not reflect the undisputed circumstances in which that had occurred; and I do not think it was accurate to say, as the panel did, that the Applicant was “not accepting responsibility for any of his behaviour”.

[43]If the recall was inappropriate, as it may well have been, that does not necessarily mean that this application for reconsideration must succeed: the panel needed to assess the Applicant’s current risk on the whole of the evidence and if I conclude that the rest of the evidence supported the panel’s decision I must dismiss this application. I will now discuss the other parts of the evidence which the panel had to consider. The Applicant’s behaviour in prison following his recall

[44]The Applicant’s behaviour following his recall was patchy. He was upset by his recall which he felt, understandably, had been unreasonable. In January 2024 staff were concerned about his mental health, and there were once again various problems with his medication. There were a number of proved adjudications, including several for threats or violence over a period of a few weeks in March/April 2024. These are recorded in the dossier as follows: - On 4 March 2024 - Proven adjudication for an assault on staff; - On 14 March 2024 - Proven adjudication for being threatening and abusive to staff (for which he was placed in the Segregation Unit for 3 days); - On 2 April 2024 - Proven adjudication for assaulting another prisoner. In fairness it should be added that on 4 April 2024 the Applicant received a Staff Commendation for going ‘above and beyond’ to help staff.

[45]Confirmation that the Applicant’s poor behaviour was linked to problems with his medication was provided by the fact that it was recorded on 12 May 2024 that his behaviour had been “ more positive in recent weeks after issues with him accessing his medication were resolved” . However, a security report in May 2024 states that he had threatened to assault female members of staff.

[46]The panel naturally attached significant weight to these matters in their assessment of the Applicant’s current risk to the public. They stated:

“Having made due allowance for the pressures of the custodial environment, [the Applicant’s] episodes of violence and threats of violence, some quite recent, cause the panel concerns about his ability to manage his emotions when faced with stresses and frustrations in the community, especially if he is unable to achieve his ends. This happened more than once in custody when he could not access his medication. It follows that he presents a risk of general violence to anyone with whom he might come into conflict or disagreement, or cannot get what he wants, or with whom he is in an intimate relationship. His past convictions record a number of offences of violence.”

[47]The solicitors respond to that by stating:

“… the Parole Board makes an assessment that due to reports of [the Applicant] using violence in custody they are of the view that he “presents a risk of general violence to anyone with whom he might come into conflict or disagreement, or cannot get what he wants, or with whom he is in an intimate relationship.”

It is not accepted that this is a logical conclusion or that the risk of violence is an imminent risk. The panel have failed to recognise that prior to recall, [the Applicant] resided in the community for a period of three weeks and did not use any form of violence. The behavioural concerns raised by the stand-in POM are circumstantial to the prison environment and it is submitted that too much weight was added to the stand-in POM’s evidence. Whilst the panel stated that they “made due allowance for the pressures of the custodial environment”, the panel failed to recognise that [the Applicant’s] COM, who had a conversation with [his] actual POM, confirmed that the behavioural concerns exhibited by [the Applicant] in custody were linked to not having access to his medication. Professionals, including the panel, will be aware that [the Applicant] has a personality disorder and requires medication to manage his condition. It is unsurprising that [the Applicant’s] behaviour deteriorated without necessary medication.”

[48]Whilst it is clear that the problems with the Applicant’s medication played a significant part in the Applicant’s poor behaviour, that is not really an answer to the panel’s concerns about stresses and frustrations in the community and the risk of them resulting in violence of some kind. This is a point which the panel were entitled (and indeed bound) to take into account in their risk assessment. If the Applicant was unable to control his emotions in a difficult situation in prison there is clearly a risk that he will be unable to control them in difficult situations in the community. Concerns about the truthfulness and reliability of the Applicant’s evidence, his insight into his risks, his ‘internal controls’ for managing them and the likeliness of any warning signs of increased risk being picked up by professionals

[49]I have already, in discussing the issues relating to the recall, dealt to some extent with the Applicant’s truthfulness and reliability. At this point I should refer to the evidence of the COM who had a different view of the Applicant’s truthfulness and reliability from the panel’s.

[50]It is noteworthy that the panel made relatively little reference to the COM’s evidence in their decision. They noted that she recommended re-release on licence; they referred to her evidence that the Applicant should have told probation about Ms M before he met her; they outlined her risk management plan; and they ended by saying “The panel disagreed with the COM. She has only limited knowledge of him. It did not share her confidence that [the Applicant] now has a greater awareness of the importance and severity of conditions placed upon him following release or that he was likely to comply with them. So much depends on his self-reporting. Also, the panel did not feel she had attached sufficient weight to his violent and threatening behaviour in custody. ”

[51]The solicitors state in their representations:

“The Parole Board states that they had reservations about [the Applicant’s] openness and likely compliance, and they deemed [him] to have a lack of insight into his risk factors and a lack of understanding as to why safeguards are in place… However, both [the Applicant] and his COM during evidence gave a well-rounded understanding of [his] risk factors, being emotional management, mental health and access to medication, alcohol use and relationships. [The Applicant] recognised this and demonstrated within his evidence that he is motivated to comply. Further, [his] openness and honesty is reflected through the reports in the dossier which demonstrate that [he] was keeping his Chiron worker updated on his situation. [The Applicant] has recognised the importance of ensuring that the probation team are also updated at every step even if the COM is uncontactable at the time.”

[52]The solicitors also suggest that the COM was in a much better position to assess the Applicant’s risks than the stand-in POM who, unlike the COM, did not support the Applicant’s re-release on licence. They state:

“It was evident during live evidence that the stand-in POM had limited knowledge of [the Applicant], the circumstances around his behaviour and the reports about his behaviour. In their decision, the Panel made only one reference to the fact that the stand-in POM had only known [the Applicant] for three weeks…: however, this in itself is misleading and inaccurate as the stand-in POM confirmed that he had only met with [the Applicant] once, for 45 minutes. The panel have failed to recognise that the stand-in POM has very little knowledge of [the Applicant]. This is even more concerning, as already mentioned, given that the Panel disregarded the COM’s evidence because, in their view, she had “very little knowledge of [the Applicant]”

. It should be noted that professionals are not required to provide an opinion, and any opinion should only be made with reference to their area of competence. Not only had the stand-in POM only met with [the Applicant] once for a short amount of time, but he was also unaware of all contents of the dossier. When it was raised to the stand-in POM that [the Applicant] has demonstrated that he is able to reach out for help as per the risk report from [the AP], the POM stated that he did not recall reading this report. It is therefore unclear what area of competence the stand-in POM holds to be in a position to give a recommendation on the safety of [the Applicant’s] release.”

[53]There is clearly a good deal of force in the solicitors’ comments about the limitations of the stand-in POM’s evidence. There is also some force in the panel’s comment about the limited knowledge which the COM had of him. It is, unfortunately, quite common - with the changes of COM which seem to take place very often these days - that the COM who gives evidence at an oral hearing has limited knowledge of the prisoner. However, even if they have had limited contact with the prisoner, COMs do normally study the dossier (there is no reason to suppose that this COM did not do that); they are trained in risk assessment; and their reports are endorsed by senior officers (who are certainly ready to disagree with them if they think it is appropriate).

[54]I have read the COM’s reports in this case. They are detailed and thoughtful. In her telephone interview with the Applicant she challenged him at appropriate points. Her risk management plan was certainly robust and well thought out. She concluded her report as follows: “In my assessment [the Applicant] now has a greater awareness of the importance and severity of the conditions placed upon him following release. [He] was recalled swiftly following the previous licence breaches. Recall has increased his understanding of the requirements placed upon him. I would assess that [he] has the capability to comply with a further period on licence and is likely to comply with a further release”.

[55]That view was shared by her supervising officer. The panel were of course entitled to disagree with the COM’s recommendation. I have carefully considered whether the evidence justified their doing so.

[56]I have already commented on the panel’s approach to the circumstances leading to the recall (paragraphs 31-43 above) and to the Applicant’s violent behaviour in custody (paragraphs 44-48 above).

[57]The panel’s view of the Applicant’s truthfulness and reliability seems to have been substantially coloured by(a) their attitude towards his evidence about the circumstances leading to his recall and

(b) their belief that he was not accepting responsibility for any of his behaviour.

[58]Those matters must inevitably have had a significant adverse effect on the panel’s views of(a) the likelihood of the Applicant being truthful and reliable in his interaction with those responsible for managing his case

(b) his insight into his risks and their management

(d) whether any warning signs would be likely to be picked up by professionals. Decision

[59]I have not found this an easy case to decide. The panel were fully entitled to attach a good deal of weight in their risk assessment to the Applicant’s behaviour in prison since his recall. However, as I have said, their whole approach to the case seems to have been coloured by their view of the circumstances leading to the recall and of what they regarded as the Applicant’s failure in “accepting responsibility for any of his behaviour” . I think, for the reasons which I have explained above, that those views can properly be characterised as unreasonable and thus as meeting the test for irrationality as established by the Wednesbury case. My decision is therefore to direct reconsideration of the panel’s decision. Jeremy Roberts 06 September 2024