Campbell, Application for Reconsideration by, [2025] PBRA 153 (24 July 2025) [2025] PBRA 153

PBRA
Campbell, Application for Reconsideration by, [2025] PBRA 153 (24 July 2025)
[2025] PBRA 153 · 2025-06-11
[1]This is an application by Campbell (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision dated 11 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 430 numbered pages), and the application for reconsideration. Background[4]On 9 March 2007, the Applicant received a sentence of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) following conviction after trial for sexual assault against a 14 year old female. He threatened to strangle the victim if she refused to perform a sex act upon him and then forced her to do so. He has an extensive history of sexually offending against females under 16, including multiple indecent assaults, inciting a child to commit an act of gross indecency and rape.[5]The Applicant has been released and recalled twice on this sentence.[6]He was most recently released on licence after an oral hearing before the Parole Board in March 2021. His licence was revoked in October 2022, and he was returned to custody. He was reportedly recalled following suspicion of being involved in an undisclosed sexual relationship with a vulnerable woman. He had also allegedly stayed at an unapproved address without informing his Community Offender Manager (COM). He was also arrested for being concerned in the supply of crack cocaine and heroin. He pleaded guilty at trial and received two further concurrent 49 month determinate sentences.[7]The Applicant was 20 years old at the time of sentencing and is now 38 years old. Request for Reconsideration[8]This application is unusual in that it contains representations drafted on behalf of the Applicant by his legal representative, and representations made directly by the Applicant himself.[9]I have taken into account the personal representations submitted directly by the Applicant.[10]The representations from the legal representative were sent to the Parole Board Case Manager on 27 June 2025 (17:56). An accompanying note asked for them to be considered " along with written representations which...are to be submitted by [the Applicant] separately but in conjunction with these representations ".[11]On 30 June 2025 (11:53), the Case Manager replied to say " I was the case manager for the oral hearing so do not process these. I have forwarded your reps to the Reconsideration team accordingly. Good Morning Reconsideration Team, please see attached reconsideration reps". By copy, the Case Manager sent this to the dedicated reconsideration mailbox.[12]At 11:56, a Team Leader replied (to the Case Manager only) to say " As the application is from the legal rep, we cannot accept the application if it is forwarded to us from the case manager. Can you go back to the legal rep and tell them that they need to send their application themselves directly to the reconsideration team inbox ".[13]At 12:10, the Case Manager replied to the legal representative to say " I have been advised by our reconsideration that the e-mail needs to come directly from yourself. Could you please send directly to [the dedicated reconsideration mailbox address]".[14]On 3 July 2025 (09:04), the legal representative emailed the dedicated reconsideration mailbox address to resubmit the representations first sent to the Case Manager on 27 June. This was after the 21 day deadline for applications had expired.[15]While I accept the legal representative may have been assured by the response from the Case Manager to say the representations had been forwarded, this error was corrected by email 17 minutes later. There were some two and a half working days between this email being sent and the deadline expiry. The initial error was that of the legal representative (even if compounded - very briefly - by the Case Manager before being undone). The published guidance is very clear in saying that only applications which are sent to the correct e-mail address will be accepted. There is an accompanying application form, which the legal representative chose not to use, but, if they had, also gives clear information as to where it should be sent.[16]The responsibility lies with the legal representative to submit documents by the prescribed method. They had ample time over two and a half working days in which to do so. The correct method was pointed out to them explicitly by the Parole Board Case Manager. If they then miss the deadline for whatever reason, I can see no procedural unfairness nor any valid basis on which I should accept them.[17]Consequently, I am disregarding the representations raised on the Applicant's behalf and deal with this application on the personal representations alone.[18]The Applicant primarily raises matters of irrationality, but also claims that some aspects of the decision making process were procedurally unfair.[19]The submissions are supplemented by written arguments to which reference will be made in the Discussion section below. Current Parole Review[20]The Applicant's case was referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State (the Respondent) to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to direct his release. If directing release, the Parole Board was also asked to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to release them unconditionally. This is the Applicant's second parole review since his second recall.[21]The case proceeded to an oral hearing on 5 June 2025, before a three-member panel, including a psychologist specialist member. The panel took oral evidence from the Applicant, the Prison Offender Manager (POM), two co-working COMs and a trainee forensic psychologist instructed by HMPPS. The Applicant was legally represented throughout the hearing.[22]The panel concluded that the statutory test for release was not met. While the Applicant has completed some accredited programmes in the past and engaged with aspects of psychological support in custody, the panel was not satisfied that his risk of serious harm had been reduced to a level consistent with protecting the public. He continued to minimise his sexual offending, showed limited insight into his risks and triggers, and resisted the need for further intervention. He also failed to build a constructive working relationship with probation, presented as evasive and guarded during the hearing, and was assessed as being at high risk of serious harm to the public, particularly in relation to his very high risk of sexual reoffending.[23]The panel further noted the Applicant's history of non-compliance with supervision, his involvement in criminal activity leading to recall, and his unwillingness to acknowledge or fully address those behaviours. All professional witnesses agreed that he required further work in closed conditions before it would be safe to consider release or progression to open conditions. On that basis, the panel concluded that continued confinement was necessary for the protection of the public. The Relevant Law[24]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)[25]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)).[26]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)).[27]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[28]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.[29]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 ."
[30]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).[31]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.[32]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.[33]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. Procedural unfairness[34]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.[35]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.[36]The overriding objective is to ensure that the Applicant's case was dealt with justly. The reply on behalf of the Respondent[37]The Respondent has submitted representations in response to this application which will also be covered in the Discussion section below. Discussion[38]The Applicant submits that the panel's findings on risk were not supported by the evidence and were therefore irrational. He argues that the panel relied on historic or disputed factors, such as anger, instrumental violence and sexual preoccupation, which had not been evidenced in his recent behaviour. The Applicant notes that he had previously been deemed safe to release by earlier panels and had lived in the community for significant periods without committing further violent or sexual offences. He disputes the panel's assessment that his current risk of direct contact sexual reoffending is very high and contends that the findings in relation to both sexual risk and engagement with supervision were unreasonable.[39]In particular, the Applicant challenges the reliance placed on the outcome of his most recent recall, asserting that the reasons for that recall were mischaracterised. He denies that he was in an undisclosed sexual relationship and contends that the panel improperly relied on security intelligence and uncorroborated comments attributed to his cousin. He further argues that the panel's conclusion that he requires additional core risk reduction work is itself flawed, on the basis that he has completed the available accredited programmes and has not been assessed as eligible for those newly introduced. He maintains that no further interventions are currently available to him in custody and that it is therefore irrational to require additional work as a precondition to release.[40]Having reviewed the panel's decision in full, including its analysis of the Applicant's offending history, risk profile, and progress since recall, I am satisfied that the conclusions reached were open to it and were not irrational in the legal sense. The panel heard evidence from multiple professional witnesses, including a prison psychologist and two community offender managers. Each of those witnesses expressed clear concern about the Applicant's ongoing risk and the absence of sufficient insight or sustained engagement with supervision. The panel noted a consistent pattern of minimisation, evasiveness, and boundary-testing behaviour, particularly in relation to relationships, supervision, and substance misuse. It gave detailed reasons for rejecting some of the Applicant's explanations, including his account of a positive drugs test and his narrative around his involvement in the supply of Class A drugs. These findings were supported by the evidence available and were subject to careful and structured reasoning.[41]The panel also had regard to the fact that the Applicant had been convicted in 2022 for drug supply offences linked to organised criminality and had served a custodial sentence as a result. While the Applicant had previously been released, the panel identified material changes in his circumstances and behaviour that reasonably supported a different conclusion at this point in time. The panel did not rely solely on risk assessments but considered the totality of the evidence in concluding that the risk to the public remained more than minimal. It also gave a reasoned explanation for its view that further risk-focused work (whether through the offender personality disorder (OPD) pathway or equivalent interventions) was necessary before safe release or progression could be supported. The fact that the Applicant is not currently eligible for certain interventions does not, in itself, render the panel's reasoning irrational. Decisions about programme eligibility fall within the remit of sentence planning and are not for the Parole Board to determine.[42]The Applicant further contends that the decision was procedurally unfair. He points to the absence of formal recall documentation in the dossier and to what he regards as untested or incorrect assertions by witnesses, including a reported comment by his cousin that he had used drugs in the community. He also suggests that the panel failed to properly consider his eligibility for IPP licence termination and was mistaken in recording that no representations had been made on that issue.[43]The panel accepts that there was no Part A, B or C recall paperwork in the dossier. The Respondent notes that these reports are only included for referrals of this type if specifically directed. The Applicant was legally represented, and if his representative felt that the absence of these reports was detrimental to the fairness of the hearing, then they should either have been sought as part of the pre-hearing administration, or (as a last resort) the matter raised at the hearing as part of a potential application for an adjournment. Neither course of action was pursued.[44]In any event, it is clear that the reasons for recall were otherwise set out and were the subject of examination at the oral hearing. The Applicant was able to respond to those issues, including the allegations about his conduct in the community, and the panel gave reasons for the weight it placed on those explanations. The disputed comment by the Applicant's cousin was not determinative and appears to have been one of several sources contributing to a broader concern about the Applicant's credibility and engagement. The panel approached this issue cautiously and in context. As to the question of IPP licence termination, it is apparent that the panel considered this fully. All professional witnesses were asked to address the question, and the panel set out its reasons for concluding that the licence should remain in force. It is clear from the panel's analysis that the issue of termination was fully explored, and the reference to ' no representations ' relates only to formal oral or written legal submissions.[45]The Respondent also confirms that the Applicant is not eligible for his recall to be disapplied.[46]I am satisfied that there is no basis upon which I can find that the decision not to direct the Applicant's release was either irrational or procedurally unfair. Decision[47]For the reasons set out above, I am not satisfied that the panel's decision was irrational or procedurally unfair. The application for reconsideration is therefore refused. Stefan Fafinski 24 July 2025