"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 ."
"In reaching its own assessment of risk, having considered both the written and oral evidence, the Panel agree that [the Applicant] would present with both a high risk to the public and a high risk of future intimate partner violence. His risk of serious harm is largely related to the potential for him to commit future acts of domestic violence towards any future intimate partner. If he were to re-establish a relationship with a previous partner (i.e. the mother of his third child) they would also be at risk from him. His proven offending in this capacity indicates he has the capacity to cause serious physical and psychological harm. [His] risk would be heightened if he was in an intimate relationship, had not dealt with attachment style which increases the likelihood of him become jealous and/or paranoid regarding a partner's fidelity, was failing to manage his emotions within this context, and was misusing alcohol. As, in the view of the Panel, [the Applicant] has not yet addressed the underlying causes of his offending behaviour and has partial insight into the future risk he poses, the Panel concluded there would be imminence to his risk if in the community. Whilst risk is mitigated by him not being in a relationship, his proven offending indicates that his risk can escalate quickly and in an unpredictable fashion. The Panel agree with the analysis of [the psychologist] that risk of sexual offending is likely to occur within an intimate relationship. [The Applicant] continues to present with a risk of general violence which would be heightened if he were under the influence of alcohol."
"Whilst the proposed RMP is robust, the conclusion of the Panel was that it was not sufficient to manage [the Applicant's] risk of serious harm. This is based on there being insufficient evidence of risk reduction since the start of his sentence, that there remains core risk reduction work outstanding and the Panel have assessed his risk as imminent. In this context the Panel were not satisfied that warning signs of increased risk would be identified and acted upon before the point at which serious harm could occur. Whilst [the Applicant] presents as motivated to comply, his lack of insight regarding this risk he poses means he may not disclose relevant information of his own volition. The Panel also note a poor history of previous compliance when in the community."
"In reaching a decision, the Panel carefully considered both the written and oral evidence and the written closing submissions from [the legal representative]. Within those submissions, [she] highlighted that although [the Applicant] had not engaged in formal risk reduction work the case of Gill indicates that such work is not necessary for sufficient condition for release and that [the Applicant] had perused [sic: pursued?] other avenues to reduce his risk. It was further highlighted that [the Applicant] is not currently in a relationship, therefore [the legal representative] submitted risk is not imminent, remaining in custody would not test any risk regarding relationships, the proposed RMP was sufficiently robust to manage his risk and that his release should be directed. "[The Applicant] is serving an EDS for several acts of serious violence against two intimate partners. One of the victims was also sexually assaulted by [the Applicant], something he disputes. The effects of his offending would have caused serious physical and enduring psychological harm to the victims. The Panel assess that [the Applicant's] emotional management within his relationships, specifically at times when he perceives a partner may have been unfaithful, the impact of his ASD and his misuse of alcohol are critical risk factors related to these offences. He has a previous conviction for assaulting one of the victims of the index offences and a previous conviction for a serious act of violence. "
"Whilst [the Applicant] maintains his innocence for the sexual element of his offending, he has not dismissed the severity of the conviction and, to his credit, has reflected on the circumstances of the offence in light of his Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and how this may have impacted on his perception of consent. "
"To reiterate the general evidence heard, whilst [the Applicant] had no support for release, it was agreed amongst professionals that [he] was an open and honest individual, with consistently good custodial behaviour, and one who was able to take on criticism and adjust his behaviour where necessary. "
"...it was brought to the attention of the Panel during the hearing that [the Applicant] was in contact with the mother of his child. Whilst this contact is purely platonic and for the benefit of their shared child, concern was raised that probation was unaware of this, despite [the Applicant's] transparency."
"[The previous COM] was not aware that the Applicant had been in contact with a previous partner. It does highlight concerns about his understanding about relationships and when to disclose these although in fairness this had not likely been explained to him therefore it is unlikely this was deliberate on his part."
"... whilst professionals consistently praised [the Applicant] for his understanding of the underlying drivers of his offending and particularly commended his understanding of his alcohol use and his recently diagnosed ASD, which has significantly contributed to his improved, positive, custodial behaviour, they took the view that he had overcompensated his risk to these factors at the expense of other risk factors at play ."
"Whilst [the Applicant] is insightful into the role of alcohol in his offending, this has been at the expense of more underlying attitudes and behaviours which have driven his use of violence."
" [The Applicant] continues to submit that there was no reluctance on his part to engage with what was required of him in the context of the subject matter, but rather that he considered his ASD to take priority given his understanding of this would directly correlate to his understanding of risk. "[The Applicant] has expressed that he has felt penalised for his inability to complete [the recommended programme] as whilst there has been some valid reluctance in light of his ASD, this has taken precedent in professional assessment rather than the hurdles that were beyond his control, creating a narrative that is not wholly accurate. In addition to this, it is submitted that [the Applicant's] perceived reluctance has been inappropriately used as evidence of lack of insight and so in turn, a lack of risk reduction. "
"...the panel have noted a degree of "over-confidence" about the extent of [the Applicant's] maturation, change and reflection, however, previously accepted that they had limited knowledge of the early years of [the Aplicant's] sentence. "
" Whilst it was agreed that risk was high in the context of an intimate relationship, it was also agreed that risk of general violence was low to medium. It was agreed that risk of serious harm was currently not imminent, and imminence would only increase if [the Applicant] were to enter into a relationship. It was further agreed that the proposed risk management plan was robust enough to manage current risk, to the point where there were additional licence conditions that could be added but were not deemed necessary at this current time. "
" Whilst we appreciate that the test for the Panel has no temporal element and so risk should be looked at in light of any possible risky scenarios, we submit that [the Applicant's] insight has been undervalued, and too greater emphasis has been placed on a hypothetical scenario that is not guaranteed to ever exist."
"... there is also no guarantee that [the Applicant] will be able to access any further accredited courses, nor will he be able to address his ASD in custody due to the lack of resources. It was discussed in the hearing that ASD services would be more readily available in the community and so the progress expected of [the Applicant] is more likely to happen in the community than [in prison] prior to his CRD in 2027. "
" [The Applicant] has now spent a long time in custody and the impact that this time has had on his risk reduction cannot be overlooked. In this time, he has matured, he has reflected on his past, he has remained abstinent from alcohol and all other substances, he has developed a new sense of self, helped by his ASD diagnosis and has shown a keen motivation for self-improvement and engagement with professionals in the future."