Skelding, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 150 (24 July 2025) [2025] PBRA 150
[1]This is an application by Skelding (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision on the papers dated 15 May 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(c) that it is procedurally unfair. This is an eligible case, and the application was made in time.[3]I have considered the application on the papers. These are the oral hearing decision, the dossier consisting of 342 pages and the application for reconsideration. Request for Reconsideration[4]The application for reconsideration is undated but submitted on time. It has been drafted by legal representatives on behalf of the Applicant. It submits that the decision was procedurally unfair in not directing an oral hearing.[5]The submission is supplemented by written arguments to which reference will be made in the Discussion section below. Background[6]On 10 November 2006 the Applicant received a sentence of imprisonment for public protection for threats to kill. His tariff expiry was set at 2 years. He was also sentenced on the same occasion to a concurrent determinate sentence of 21 months for dangerous driving. His tariff expired on 10 November 2008.[7]The Applicant was aged 38 at the time of sentencing and is now 57 years old. Current parole review[8]The Applicant’s case was referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State (the Respondent) in December 2024 to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to direct his release. If the Board did not consider it appropriate to direct release, it was invited to advise the Secretary of State whether the Applicant should be transferred to open conditions.[9]The case was concluded on the papers. The panel did not direct the Applicant’s release nor make a recommendation for open conditions. The Relevant Law[10]The panel correctly sets out in its decision letter of 15 May 2025 the test for release and the issues to be addressed in making a recommendation to the Secretary of State for a progressive move to open conditions. Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)[11]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)).[12][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)).] Procedural unfairness 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. 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;(e) the panel did not properly record the reasons for any findings or conclusion; and/or(f) the panel was not impartial. The overriding objective is to ensure that the Applicant’s case was dealt with justly. The reply on behalf of the Secretary of State 16.The Respondent has submitted no representations in response to this application. Discussion 17.The application states that the Applicant has a formal diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) which impacts his presentation and his ability to engage with custodial interventions and the parole process. The application submits that the diagnosis and the impact on behaviour, motivation and engagement called for the review to be by way of an oral hearing panel so that evidence could be presented and challenged and clarified and explored. The application submits that there were therefore gaps in the information before the panel which presented a decision which was therefore unfair. 18.The panel decision was considered by a Duty Member who in a decision dated 3 June 2025 concluded, “ on the basis of all of the material in the dossier and the information provided, that there is no reason to believe that oral evidence would assist in resolving any disputes concerning facts, providing information that might mitigate the apparent level of risk presented, or would enable clarification of any points materially relevant to the assessment of risk, which are already clearly set out in the information supplie d”. 19.The Applicant does not identify any recent report in the dossier in which his diagnosis is confirmed or reported as impacting on his presentation or his engagement with the parole process. It is of note that having been given the opportunity to engage with psychology services he failed to do so. In her report of 17 February 2025 the forensic psychologist notes that following an initial meeting to obtain his consent to engage with the psychological assessment, the Applicant subsequently made derogatory comments about her and withdrew his consent and declined to engage further, even declining an invitation to engage in writing. 20.Further the Applicant fails to mention his ASD concerns to his Community Offender Manager (COM) who in the PAROM1 report of 14 March 2025 states “ The Applicant continues, in my opinion, to be an individual who has the capacity to self analyse and comment upon his own mental well being. During the recent interview for this report, on 05.03.25, he descried himself as a "happy go lucky person" which may be the case at times, but his behaviour, at times, has suggested otherwise. He now describes himself as a "different person now to when I first arrived at [his current prison]." When I asked him to qualify this statement, he referred to how he feels more mature than he was, he feels better placed at being able to identify triggers to his aggressive and violent outbursts towards others, as well as reflecting on the need to walk away from social interactions and difficulties before losing his temper. When asked about the reason for this recent positive development, [the Applicant] attributes this to the work he has been doing on Mindfulness within the Dialectical Behavioural Therapy on [the psychology unit] ……. the Applicant has indicated to myself that he does not feel sufficiently prepared for release and will not be applying to the Parole Board for consideration for a release, subject to Licence, at this time. He is fully aware that an expectation upon himself would be for him to establish and maintain a stable period of custodial conduct before any recommendation would be made by the Probation Service for release .” 21.Having carefully considered the decision letter and the information in the dossier, I am satisfied that the panel member carefully considered all the information presented. On the basis of the documents in the dossier there was no evidence before the panel to indicate that it needed to see and hear from the Applicant in order to properly assess risk and/or that it was necessary to do so in order to allow the prisoner to properly put his case 22.On the basis of the evidence before the panel, including the report of the COM and the psychologist there was no request for an oral hearing and no basis on which it could be argued that the panel would have been assisted by receiving oral evidence. The issues were clear and uncomplicated, there were no ambiguities or complexities that required exploration. The issues now raised by the Applicant were not in the recent reports before the panel and were not raised by the Applicant for attention of professionals on occasions when he had the opportunity to do so. 23.I am satisfied that there was no procedural irregularity. Decision 24.For the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the decision was procedurally unfair and accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused. Barbara Mensah 24 July 2025