‘In brief, [the Applicant] persuaded the victim, who had mental health vulnerabilities, to accompany him to the [other man’s] house. There he made her smoke crack cocaine and perform oral sex on him. He then insisted that she should let his co-defendant “do as he wished”. [The other man] then committed offences of anal and vaginal rape upon the victim.’
‘One of [the Applicant’s] conditions was to observe a curfew between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. The Parole Board had highlighted in its [previous] decision the importance of structured liaison between Probation, …mental health services and [the housing provider]. However, on the first day [the Applicant] was late for his probation appointment and arrived extremely late back at his accommodation. He was reminded about the importance of abiding by his curfew, but was even later the following night. ‘On16 June 2021 he met professionals responsible for his case, who again emphasised the importance of adhering to his licence conditions. He claimed to have been visiting his aunt in Islington for a meal on the first night, but it later emerged that he was visiting a sex worker friend who had tried to persuade him to return for his curfew. The friend told Probation that [the Applicant] had been taken advantage of by other sex workers. His apparent preoccupation with sex mirrored the behaviour which led to his previous recall, and he showed resentment for rules and a belief that authorities were conspiring against him …The result of him not returning to [the housing provider] until 4 a.m. was that he missed two doses of his prescribed medication…’
“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 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 .”
“ 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 ”
‘The panel noted that a care programme approach (CPA) meeting had taken place in August 2024. A number of key professionals attended the meeting, as did [the Applicant] himself. The meeting was held to reflect upon the fact that [the Applicant] suffers from a mental disorder and therefore requires the support of mental health services in the community. ‘The meeting minutes indicate that professionals were able to consider the potential problems of managing [the Applicant’s] difficulties in the community. However, two matters emerge from the minutes; firstly that no concrete plan (beyond generic generalisations) was being suggested tailored to meet [the Applicant’s] specific risks and needs, in particular the need for intense and constant oversight. Secondly the general view (of those attending) was that there were difficulties in predicting [the Applicant’s] compliance in terms of future behaviour. ‘Of great importance, so far as the panel were concerned, was the fact that the CPA minutes provided little or no concrete indication of how [the Applicant’s] mental health and risk factors would be managed in the community. The minutes indicated no clear view as to the regularity of any input from forensic mental health services, or details about the availability of suitable accommodation, or the method by which medication compliance and general compliance with licence conditions, in terms of risk, would be monitored. ‘The panel considered [the Applicant’s] potential for using his own internal controls to manage risk. The panel accept that [the Applicant] himself, at the hearing and in earlier hearings, has expressed a commitment to living a pro-social life and complying with licence conditions in the community. Despite these positive expressions, the panel took the view that the historical evidence indicates that [the Applicant], when in the unstructured environment of the community, has very limited ability to manage compliance and adhere to licence conditions. The panel were not persuaded that behaviour in the highly structured environment of a prison is a helpful measure of [the Applicant’s] ability to harness internal controls in the community. ‘For that reason the panel, whilst respecting [the POM’s view] that [the Applicant] was well thought of in the prison by staff, reject the basis of her recommendation. [The POM’s] confidence about [the Applicant’s] ability to manage his risks in the community took little account of evidence of how [he] in fact has managed outside prison in the past. ‘Similarly, the panel had difficulty in supporting the confidence of [the COM] about [the Applicant’s] ability to manage internal controls in the community. The panel accept that [the COM] referred to a number of generic support agencies and her own supervision as assisting [the Applicant] to manage himself in the community: however, the intensity and frequency of those controls was unclear and in most cases relatively infrequent. ‘In the current climate, the panel accept that in reality the Probation Service can offer relatively limited day-to-day support of those for whom they hold responsibility. Reliance inevitably has to be placed upon [the Applicant] himself, using his own internal controls. As indicated, the evidence clearly supports the view that [the Applicant] has a low likelihood of compliance. He tends to have a poor relationship with professionals and prioritises his own immediate concerns, whether sexual or otherwise, over any requirement to adhere to licence conditions and prosocial behaviour. ‘The panel accept that this is clearly a function of [the Applicant’s] mental health and personality issues, however they are concerns which can only be addressed by intensive, regular and frequent oversight. So far as external controls are concerned, the panel took note in particular of the views of [the psychiatrist] who has known [the Applicant] for some time. [The psychiatrist] favours [the Applicant] being directed for release into the community and takes the view that [the Applicant’s] risks could be managed. However, of crucial importance is that [the psychiatrist] takes the view that those risks can only be managed if he is subject to highly intensive oversight. ‘[The psychiatrist], in addition to supported accommodation and the other listed support agencies within the risk management plan, suggested morning and evening check-ins, and daily plans agreed and delivered by a key worker. ‘The panel analysed the risk management plan. Although there are references to a number of agencies and references to collaborative work with agencies, the reality is that very few of those agencies would be proactive in overseeing [the Applicant] in the community. Many would rely upon [the Applicant] himself attending for support and supervision. The CPA meeting gave no detailed indication of the proactive support that forensic mental health services would provide. ‘The panel’s role is not to draft risk management plans; the panel suggest that there may be a package of support which would enable [the Applicant] to live safely in the community. However, that package of support would amount to 24-hour oversight and supervision. It will be essential to ensure that medication is being taken regularly. It would also involve a regular relationship with key workers and others who were able to plan a timetable for [the Applicant’s] daily living plans, and in particular would ensure that skilled staff would be able to quickly identify the elevation of risk and intervene. ‘The panel took account of the fact that [the COM] indicated that she felt that risk was not imminent and that a deterioration in behaviour and an elevation in risk would be able to be identified and intervention could take place. The panel disagreed with this view. [The Applicant’s] historical behaviour indicates that he acts on impulse, he prioritises his own needs over the need for compliance and managing risky behaviour. The panel therefore took the view that the risk of serious harm was imminent, in the case of [the Applicant], unless he had a highly intensive and 24-hour oversight in the community. ‘The panel therefore reflected upon the risk management plan and licence conditions suggested. Despite the plan containing a number of positive potential interventions and support agencies, the plan in its present form would, in the panel’s determination, be incapable of managing [the Applicant’s] potential risk of serious harm. ‘In the light of the fact that the panel also determine that [the Applicant] has extremely limited internal control mechanisms, any decision to direct release would be virtually fully dependent upon the strength of external control mechanisms, which as indicated, the panel do not find reflected in the present plan.’
‘ The Panel erroneously concluded that [the Applicant] needs to undertake more risk reduction work. He has previously been released by the Parole Board having concluded that he has completed all risk reduction work.’
‘He has been recalled for breaching licence conditions, and the reasons were not linked to the index offence and he has not been charged with further offences. In addition to the above, as per the decision of Sturnham as a post-tariff prisoner, the [Applicant’s] detention depended on whether he posed a risk of committing offences of serious violence similar to his index offence. There is no evidence within the [Applicant’s] dossier or at the hearing that [his] risk is imminent and that he is likely to commit similar offences as the index offence.’
‘ The allusion of further offences being committed prior to the index, without any substantial proof or evidence is incredibly harmful to the Applicant and is ultra vires.’