Hookway, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 145 (10 July 2025) [2025] PBRA 145

PBRA
Hookway, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 145 (10 July 2025)
[2025] PBRA 145 · 2025-06-02
[1]This is an application by Hookway (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision dated 2 June 2025 not to direct his release. The decision was made by a panel following an oral hearing.[2]Rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended) (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(c) that it is procedurally unfair.[3]I have considered the application on the papers. These are the decision, the dossier (consisting of 390 numbered pages), and the application for reconsideration. Background[4]On 27 June 2014, the Applicant received an extended sentence of ten years in custody with a five year extended licence following conviction for conspiracy to commit robbery. The offence took place while the Applicant was on a period of release on temporary licence (ROTL) from open conditions and involved the robbery of two security guards as they were loading ATM machines. They were threatened at knifepoint, and £60,000 in cash was stolen (which has reportedly never been recovered).[5]He was released on licence after an oral hearing before the Parole Board in October 2021. His licence was revoked in April 2024, and he was returned to custody. His recall followed his arrest on suspicion of threatening to damage property against an ex-partner. After being released on bail, he was further arrested on suspicion of criminal damage, stalking and assault against a different ex-partner and possessing drugs.[6]The Applicant subsequently pleaded guilty to harassment without violence against one ex-partner and possessing cocaine. He received an eight week sentence. He was also convicted of threatening behaviour towards the other ex-partner and received a conditional discharge. No evidence was offered regarding the other matters.[7]The Applicant was 36 years old at the time of sentencing and is now 47 years old. Request for Reconsideration[8]The application for reconsideration is dated 19 June 2025 and has been drafted by solicitors on behalf of the Applicant. It submits that the decision was irrational. No submissions were made regarding procedural unfairness or error of law.[9]The submissions are supplemented by written arguments to which reference will be made in the Discussion section below. Current Parole Review[10]The Applicant’s case was referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State (the Respondent) to consider whether to direct his release. This is the Applicant’s first parole review since recall.[11]The case proceeded to an oral hearing on 27 May 2025, before a three-member panel. The panel took oral evidence from the Applicant, a stand-in Prison Offender Manager (POM), and the Community Offender Manager (COM). The Applicant was legally represented throughout the hearing.[12]In the professional opinions of the POM and COM, the Applicant was suitable for release.[13]The panel did not direct release. It concluded that the risk of serious harm remained too high. While the Applicant had made some progress in custody and both professional witnesses supported release, the panel was concerned that the Applicant’s offending history showed a pattern of serious, violent behaviour, including the index offence committed while on ROTL during a sentence for a previous robbery. On his most recent release, he concealed drug and alcohol misuse and was convicted of threatening and harassing two ex-partners. The panel noted that these behaviours occurred without clear warning signs, undermining confidence in future risk management.[14]Although the Applicant had taken some positive steps, the panel considered that he lacked the resilience needed to manage stress without resorting to harmful behaviour. It concluded that the proposed risk management plan was not sufficient to mitigate its concerns. The Relevant Law[15]The Parole Board will direct release if it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined. Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)[16]Rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules provides the types of decision which are eligible for reconsideration. Decisions concerning whether the prisoner is or is not suitable for release on licence are eligible for reconsideration whether made by a paper panel (rule 19(1)(a) or (b)) or by an oral hearing panel after an oral hearing (rule 25(1)) or by an oral hearing panel which makes the decision on the papers (rule 21(7)). Decisions concerning the termination, amendment, or dismissal of an IPP licence are also eligible for reconsideration (rule 31(6) or rule 31(6A)).[17]Rule 28(2) of the Parole Board Rules provides the sentence types which are eligible for reconsideration. These are indeterminate sentences (rule 28(2)(a)), extended sentences (rule 28(2)(b)), certain types of determinate sentence subject to initial release by the Parole Board (rule 28(2)(c)) and serious terrorism sentences (rule 28(2)(d)).[18]A decision to recommend or not to recommend a move to open conditions is not eligible for reconsideration under rule 28. This has been confirmed by the decision on the previous reconsideration application in Barclay [2019] PBRA 6 . Irrationality[19]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 (CA) 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.[20]In R(DSD and others) v Parole Board [2018] EWHC 694 (Admin) the Divisional Court applied this test to Parole Board hearings in these words (at [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 .”
[21]In R(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 the Divisional Court in R(Secretary of State for Justice) v Parole Board [2022] EWHC 1282 (Admin).[22]As was made clear by Saini J in Wells, 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.[23]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.[24]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. The reply on behalf of the Respondent[25]The Respondent has submitted representations in response to this application which will also be covered in the Discussion section below. Discussion[26]The Applicant argues that the decision was irrational, mainly because the proposed risk management plan has become stronger and more structured since the oral hearing. The application also raises objections to parts of the panel's reasoning, but it does not explain how these disagreements would make the panel's decision irrational.[27]The Applicant points out that the COM has confirmed that there is funding in place for a period in a rehabilitation facility (rehab), giving two stronger potential options for release: release to designated accommodation for three months, followed by up to six months in rehab, or direct release to rehab. Both options would be continued with a period of electronic monitoring. However, this information was not available to the panel at the time of the oral hearing.[28]The Respondent confirms that funding has since been secured but notes this could be impacted if the designated accommodation placement becomes available prior to admission to rehab. Rehab funding is applied for nine months in advance and is only available for one placement per year.[29]The Respondent also highlights that this information was not available to the panel at the time of the hearing. It is argues that the reconsideration mechanism should not be used for the purpose of providing new information to the panel, and that the panel can only make a decision based on the evidence provided at the point of the hearing.[30]I agree with the Respondent's position. In line with Wells , I must test the panel's conclusion against the evidence that was actually before it. As the new risk management proposals were not available at the time of the oral hearing, the panel cannot be said to have acted irrationally by not considering them.[31]The application is therefore unfounded and must fail. Decision[32]For the reasons set out above, I am not satisfied that the panel’s decision was irrational. The application for reconsideration is therefore refused. Stefan Fafinski 10 July 2025