Murton, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 157 (30 July 2025) [2025] PBRA 157

PBRA

Murton, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 157 (30 July 2025)

[2025] PBRA 157 · 2025-07-03

[1]This is an application by Murton (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of an oral hearing dated 23 June 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. These are oral hearing decision, the dossier consisting of 1,326 pages and the application for reconsideration. Request for Reconsideration

[4]The application for reconsideration is dated 3 July 2025. It has been drafted by legal representatives on behalf of the Applicant. It submits that the decision is irrational.

[5]The grounds for seeking a reconsideration are that the panel’s conclusions regarding the Applicant’s contact with a particular individual were irrational. It submits that but for this conclusion the reports all speak positively of the Applicant’s motivation and engagement and in those circumstances the decision may have been different. The decision also submits that the panel did not consider the Applicant’s compliance and his opportunity to engage in available interventions. Background

[6]The Applicant on 17 December 2015 received an extended sentence of 12 years comprising 8 years custody and 4 years extended licence following guilty pleas to rape and assault by penetration. His sentence expiry date is October 2026.

[7]The Applicant was 33 years old at the time of sentencing and is now 43 years old. Current parole review

[8]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.

[9]The case proceeded to an oral hearing via videoconference on 9 June 2025. The panel consisted of two independent members and a psychologist member. It heard oral evidence from the Applicant, together with his Prison Offender Manager (POM) from his current and his previous institutions, the Community Offender Manager (COM) from both institutions and a prison psychologist. The Applicant was legally represented throughout the hearing. The Respondent was not represented by an advocate. The Relevant Law

[10]The panel correctly sets out in its decision letter of 23 June 2025 the test for release. 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)). Irrationality 13.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. 14.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. ” 15.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). 16.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. 17.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. 18.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 Secretary of State 19.The Respondent has submitted no representations in response to this application. Discussion 20.The grounds amount to a re-argument of an account that was presented to the panel. The application repeats and sets out the Applicant’s meetings with Ms M and repeats his claim of the knowledge of the professionals about the relationship. He repeats the evidence of the otherwise positive reports given by the COM as to his compliance and the report of the Intensive Intervention and Risk Management Services (IIRMS) team regarding his successful engagement. The application argues that the panel failed to take into consideration the fact that he ended the relationship with his then wife in compliance with the conditions. The Applicant submits that interventions were not offered to him and that the panel did not consider the compliance he showed on the first release occasion. 21.I have carefully considered the decision letter. The matters relating to his contact with Ms M (referred to in the decision letter as DK and in the COM report by another name, initials KM) were dealt with in the COM report, the oral hearing, the letter submitted by Ms M on the Applicant’s behalf and the additional submissions by his legal representative. The panel did not incorrectly interpret or misunderstand the evidence. The clear reasons given for preferring the evidence of the professionals were not irrational and the rejection of the Applicant’s account on this issue does not provide him with a basis for reconsideration. 22.The application for reconsideration alleges that areas in the decision regarding his relationship with Ms M are “misguided” , “wholly inaccurate and without rationale” and contrary to the account that he has given. Panels of the Parole Board are not obliged to adopt the arguments of Applicants simply because they are given. It is the responsibility of the panel to make its own risk assessments and to evaluate the likely effectiveness of any risk management plan proposed. The panel was aware of the Applicant’s evidence directly contradicting that of the professionals and having assessed it preferred that presented by the professionals. The grounds amount to a disagreement, but disagreement is not enough to establish irrationality in law. 23.The lack of interventions completed by the Applicant has also been properly dealt with in the decision letter, the panel noting that not all interventions are available at the institution where he is based. The panel also notes his refusal to move to undertake the interventions despite the necessity to do so to address the risk that he poses. That lack of insight of the need to address risks is another consideration for concern. 24.The panel has noted the interventions the Applicant undertook but also noted that they are not sufficient to address risk without further interventions. The panel was aware of his period in the community, which ended with his recall back to custody. It is a matter for the panel the weight to be attached to the matters under consideration. The decision was considered and balanced. There is no evidence that the analysis or the panel’s conclusions were unfair or irrational. 25.The legal test for irrationality sets a high bar which this case does not come near to meeting. Accordingly, this application must fail. Decision 26.For the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the decision was irrational and accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused. Barbara Mensah 30 July 2025