Lally, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 126 (17 June 2025) [2025] PBRA 126

PBRA

Lally, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 126 (17 June 2025)

[2025] PBRA 126 · 2025-03-11

[1]This is an application by Lally (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of an MCA panel made on the papers, dated 11 March 2025, not to direct release.

[2]Rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended by the Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2024) (the Parole Board Rules) provides that applications for reconsideration may be made in eligible cases (as set out in rule 28(2)) either on the basis(a) that the decision contains an error of law,

(b) that it is irrational and/or

[3]I have considered the application on the papers. The papers comprise:a. The dossier now comprising 158 numbered pages including the decision letter (DL), the subject of this application.

b. The grounds dated 9 May 2025 submitted on behalf of the Applicant in person in support of the application. Representations dated 7 June 2025 have been received on behalf of the Secretary of State for Justice (the Respondent). Request for Reconsideration

[4]The application for reconsideration is dated 09 May 2025.

[5]The grounds complain:a. That the DL does not record the fact that some members of the Applicant’s family stand by him.

b. That the possible course(s) which have been suggested for the Applicant to complete while in prison have not been available because his “scores are too low.”

c. That the panel did not order an oral hearing and make a decision following it whether the Applicant’s request for a public hearing be granted. Background

[6]The Applicant is now 42 years old. In August 2020 he was sentenced to an extended sentence for offenders of particular concern for sexual offences committed against a female child under the age of 13. His Parole Eligibility Date is in August 2025, his Conditional Release Date is in August 2030, and his sentence will expire in August 2031. Current parole review

[7]The Review was the first since the sentence was passed. The Relevant Law

[8]The panel correctly sets out in its decision letter dated 11 March 2025 the test for release. Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)

[9]Rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules provides the types of decision which are eligible for reconsideration. This is an eligible decision. Irrationality

[10]The power of the courts to interfere with a decision of a competent tribunal on the ground of irrationality was defined in Associated Provincial Houses ltd -v- Wednesbury Corporation 1948 1 KB 223 by Lord Greene in these words:

“ 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 same test applies to a reconsideration panel when determining an application on the basis of irrationality.

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

2018 EWHC 694

(Admin) a Divisional Court applied this test to parole board hearings in these words at para 116:

“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. ”

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

2019 EWHC 2710

(Admin) Saini J set out what he described as a more nuanced approach in modern public law which was “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 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).

[13]As was made clear by Saini J this is not a different test to the Wednesbury test. The interpretation of and application of the Wednesbury test in Parole hearings as explained in DSD was binding on Saini J.

[14]It follows from those principles that in considering an application for reconsideration the reconsideration panel will not substitute its view of the evidence for that of the panel who heard the witnesses.

[15]Further while the views of the professional witnesses must be properly considered by a panel deciding on release, the panel is not bound to accept their assessment. The panel must however make clear in its reasons why it is disagreeing with the assessment of the witnesses. Other

[16]In Oyston

[2000] PLR 45

, at paragraph 47 Lord Bingham said: “ It seems to me generally desirable that the Board should identify in broad terms the matters judged by the Board as pointing towards and against a continuing risk of offending and the Board's reasons for striking the balance that it does. Needless to say, the letter should summarise the considerations which have in fact led to the final decision. It would be wrong to prescribe any standard form of Decision Letter and it would be wrong to require elaborate or impeccable standards of draftsmanship. " The reply on behalf of the Secretary of State

[17]In response to the application, the Respondent has confirmed that the course previously suggested for the Applicant is not available to him, and that other interventions have been recommended. Discussion

[18]It will be clear from the cases referred to above concerning irrationality that an application for reconsideration following a case such as this in which the two professionals mostly closely concerned with the current and, if released on licence, future management of the Applicant opposed release, will require some fundamental failure of reasoning within the DL to render its decision irrational.

[19]The core of the application is the Applicant’s maintenance of his innocence and his wish that the Parole Board should effectively agree with him. As the DL rightly points out this is not possible. The Parole Board is bound by the finding(s) of the court which convicted him, and if there was an appeal, which dismissed that appeal. The DL does refer to the difficulties which have arisen through no fault of the Applicant concerning possible work to reduce his risk but expresses optimism that such work will soon be available if the Applicant is willing, as he currently appears to be, to do it. (In this context it is encouraging to note - though irrelevant when assessing the rationality of the earlier decision - that the submission of the Respondent informs me that further work of the type suggested by the Prison Offender Manager (POM) and Community Offender Manager (COM) may now be available on a “1-1” basis.)

[20]An applicant seeking an order for reconsideration has an uphill struggle when the Parole Board panel deciding the case has had no report from a professional witness in favour of release and clear recommendations from the COM, supported by the POM (pp63-64 of the dossier), who would have the task of overseeing release and adherence to conditions, that release is not appropriate. I have considered the COM’s report and the DL carefully and find nothing irrational in their conclusions that the risk posed by the Applicant is currently too high for release to be directed.

[21]I have considered the DL and its conclusions in the light of the principles set out above at paragraphs 10-16 above and found no irrationality at all, let alone such irrationality as to merit an order for reconsideration. To repeat, the Applicant must understand - as set out at paragraph 19 above and in the DL - that the Parole Board is bound by the findings of the court which tried him.

[22]The final ground concerning the request for an oral hearing and for that hearing to be held in public is not amenable to an application for reconsideration which is confined to decisions to release or not to release. Decision

[23]For the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the decision was irrational and accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused. Sir David Calvert-Smith 17 June 2025