Young, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 146 (16 July 2025) [2025] PBRA 146
PBRA
Young, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 146 (16 July 2025)
[2025] PBRA 146 · 2025-04-25
[1]This is an application by Young (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision dated 25 April 2025 not to direct his release. The decision was made by a panel on the papers.[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(c) that it is procedurally unfair.[3]I have considered the application on the papers. These are the decision, the dossier (consisting of 340 numbered pages), and the application for reconsideration. Background[4]On 11 May 2009, the Applicant received a sentence of imprisonment for public protection following conviction on five counts of robbery and one attempted robbery. Nine other offences were taken into consideration. The Applicant pleaded guilty to all charges. The tariff was set at two and a half years (less time spent on remand). It expired in September 2011.[5]He has been released and recalled twice on this sentence. He was most recently released in October 2022 but recalled in November 2022 following his arrest in connection with an allegation of rape. The complaint was later withdrawn, but the Applicant was convicted for assaulting an emergency worker and criminal damage.[6]The Applicant was 21 years old at the time of sentencing and is now 37 years old. Request for Reconsideration[7]The application for reconsideration has been submitted by solicitors on behalf of the Applicant. It begins by arguing that the decision was procedurally unfair and irrational. However no submissions are made in the remainder of the application regarding irrationality or error of law and I shall therefore simply deal with the alleged procedural unfairness argued within the application.[8]The application is supplemented by written arguments to which reference will be made in the Discussion section below. Current Parole Review[9]The Applicant’s case was referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State (the Respondent) in November 2024 to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to direct his release. If release was not directed the Board was invited to advise the Respondent whether the Applicant should be transferred to open conditions. It is only the release decision that is subject to reconsideration. This is the Applicant’s third parole review.[10]The case was reviewed by a single member Member Case Assessment panel (MCA panel) on 25 April 2025. The panel did not direct the Applicant’s release. The dossier contained extensive written legal representations.[11]The panel concluded that the Applicant continued to pose a high risk of serious harm that could not be safely managed in the community. It considered the Applicant to have a long-standing pattern of violent and risky behaviour, with poor emotional regulation, repeated non-compliance, and substance misuse. The panel further noted that, since his last review, he has continued to display aggression, threats towards staff, and poor engagement, including refusing a transfer to a rehabilitative regime. The panel was particularly concerned by the Applicant’s lack of insight into his behaviour and risk, as well as his history of dishonesty with supervisors and failure to comply with licence conditions. Despite a proposed risk management plan, the panel found that the Applicant could not be relied upon to self-regulate or engage safely with others when unsupervised.[12]This decision was made under rule 19(1)(b) and, by operation of rule 19(6) was a provisional decision. Rule 20(1) permits a prisoner who has received a provisional negative decision on the papers to apply in writing for his case to be determined by a panel at an oral hearing. Rule 20(2) provides that any such application must be served within 28 days of receipt of the provisional decision.[13]An application was made for an oral hearing. On 5 June 2025, a Duty Member dismissed the application. The Duty Member noted that the Applicant has been recalled twice and continues to have difficulties managing his emotions since his last oral hearing in April 2024. Moreover, the Duty Member notes that has been no significant change since the last hearing and the recommendations of a 2023 psychological risk assessments have not been completed. The Relevant Law[14]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)[15]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)).[16]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)).[17]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 . Procedural unfairness[18]Procedural unfairness means that there was some procedural impropriety or unfairness resulting in the proceedings being fundamentally flawed and therefore, producing a manifestly unfair, flawed, or unjust result. These issues (which focus on how the decision was made) are entirely separate to the issue of irrationality which focusses on the actual decision.[19]In summary an Applicant seeking to complain of procedural unfairness under rule 28 must satisfy me that either:(a) express procedures laid down by law were not followed in the making of the relevant decision;(b) they were not given a fair hearing;(c) they were not properly informed of the case against them;(d) they were prevented from putting their case properly; and/or(e) the panel was not impartial.[20]The overriding objective is to ensure that the Applicant’s case was dealt with justly. The reply on behalf of the Respondent[21]The Respondent has advised that no representations will be submitted in response to this application. Discussion[22]It is first submitted that the decision was unfair as the panel failed to follow Osborn, Booth and Reilly [2013] UKSC 61 and R (Somers) v Parole Board of England and Wales [2023] EWHC 1160 (Admin) . Somers was considered in the High Court, and simply applies Osborn. The passages quoted from Somers replicate Osborn . The Osborn principles are well known.[23]The submissions essentially come down to the simple argument that the panel has not engaged with Osborn fully.[24]I disagree. The panel sets out detailed reasons (in paras. 4.2 to 4.6) why it did not direct the matter to an oral hearing. The panel did not direct an oral hearing because it found that the evidence available was sufficient to make a decision on the papers and that an oral hearing would not assist. Given the absence of any new developments or material change in risk, and the clarity of the written evidence, the panel concluded that an oral hearing was not necessary. The panel carefully acknowledged the Applicant’s written legal representations and noted that lack of support for release was not a reason to decline an oral hearing. Although not within the scope of this application, the panel’s decision to conclude on the papers was upheld by a Duty Member after considering further legal representations. The panel’s reasoning was fair in all the circumstances of the case. Decision[25]For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that the panel’s decision not to direct release was procedurally fair. The application for reconsideration must therefore be refused. Stefan Fafinski 16 July 2025