Ali, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 159 (30 July 2025) [2025] PBRA 159

PBRA
Ali, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 159 (30 July 2025)
[2025] PBRA 159 · 2025-07-10
[1]This is an application by Ali (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision dated 10 July 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 396 numbered pages), and the application for reconsideration. Background[4]On 8 June 2016, the Applicant received a sentence for offenders of particular concern (SOPC) consisting of 17 years in custody with a one year extended licence following conviction on two counts of assault of a female child under 13 (penetration of vagina/anus with part of body/object). He also received a determinate sentence of ten years for sexual assault on a female by penetration, determinate sentences of four years on each of four counts of sexual assault of a female child under 13, and determinate sentences of three years on each of two counts of sexual assault of a female (intentional touching, no penetration). He pleaded not guilty to all charges.[5]The offences took place against the Applicant’s stepdaughter who was aged between 11 and 14 over the period in which the offences took place. The Applicant maintains his innocence.[6]The Applicant was 37 years old at the time of sentencing and is now 46 years old.[7]Key dates relevant to his sentence are reported to be: a) Parole eligibility date: November 2024; b) Conditional release date: May 2033; and c) Sentence expiry date: May 2034. Request for Reconsideration[8]The application for reconsideration is undated 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) in February 2024 to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to direct his release. This is the Applicant’s first parole review.[11]The case proceeded to an oral hearing on 1 July 2025, before a three-member panel including a psychologist specialist member. The panel took oral evidence from the Applicant, the Prison Offender Manager (POM), the Community Offender Manager (COM) and a forensic psychologist commissioned by HMPPS (the ‘prison psychologist’). The Applicant was legally represented throughout the hearing.[12]In the professional opinions of the POM, COM and prison psychologist, the Applicant was suitable for release.[13]The panel did not direct release. Although all professional witnesses supported release and acknowledged the Applicant’s exemplary custodial behaviour, the panel considered that his risks in the community remained insufficiently understood. The Applicant continued to deny the index offences, which prevented full exploration of the factors that led to his offending. As a result, the panel was concerned that key areas of risk (particularly those relating to sexual attitudes, emotional stress, and avoidant problem-solving) had not been adequately addressed through offending behaviour work in custody.[14]While professionals felt that further work could be undertaken in the community, the panel considered this approach left risk management too reliant on external controls. It noted the absence of robust internal controls and questioned whether the Applicant’s positive conduct in the highly structured environment of custody would reliably translate into community settings, particularly if he faced significant life stressors such as immigration uncertainty, financial strain, or relationship breakdown. The panel was also concerned about the extent to which the Applicant’s long-term partner was protective, especially given her position as the mother of the victim and the absence of any professional engagement with her.[15]In light of these concerns, the panel concluded that the risk management plan was overly dependent on supervision and monitoring, and consequently that the Applicant’s risks could not yet be managed safely in the community. The Relevant Law[16]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)[17]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)).[18]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)).[19]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[20]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.[21]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 .”
[22]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).[23]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.[24]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.[25]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[26]The Respondent has advised that no representations will be offered in response to this application. Discussion[27]The Applicant argues that the decision not to direct release is irrational because it failed to give proper weight to key protective factors and did not reflect the consistent professional evidence presented at the hearing. The Applicant maintains that his long-term relationship with the victim’s mother (his partner of 17 years) represents a significant protective factor that continues to provide emotional stability and support. He considers it irrational that the panel did not treat this as such.[28]He also contends that the panel placed undue weight on historic, minor convictions from over a decade ago, which he believes are unrelated to his current level of risk or behaviour. He highlights that all professionals involved in the case supported his release and took the view that his risk is manageable in the community.[29]The Applicant acknowledges that he has not completed accredited offending behaviour programmes but argues this is due to ineligibility linked to his stance on the index offence. He notes that the panel accepted his willingness to engage and his positive behaviour in custody yet still relied on the absence of programme completion as a reason to deny release. He finds this inconsistent with the professional view that such work is not essential or could be completed in the community.[30]In his view, the panel placed too much emphasis on hypothetical risks and failed to account for the more stable and less stressful environment he would return to on release. As such, he submits that the decision lacks a rational foundation and should be reconsidered.[31]The panel accepted that the Applicant had demonstrated exemplary custodial behaviour, that all professional witnesses supported release, and that the proposed risk management plan was comprehensive in terms of external controls. However, it also identified a number of unresolved concerns which it considered sufficient to support its conclusion that the test for release had not yet been met.[32]The Applicant argues that the panel failed to give appropriate weight to his long-standing relationship with the victim’s mother, whom he describes as a consistent source of support. The panel did not ignore this relationship. It expressly considered it but noted that no direct contact had been made with her by the COM, and that her protective value could not therefore be reliably assessed. Given the context that she is the mother of the victim, it was not irrational for the panel to treat the relationship with caution.[33]The Applicant also submits that the panel placed undue weight on historic, non-sexual convictions which he believes are irrelevant. In reality, the panel made only passing reference to those convictions and considered them in the context of his past problem-solving under stress. This was a legitimate and proportionate consideration, especially in light of the panel’s wider concerns about how the Applicant might cope with future stressors in the community.[34]Central to the Applicant’s argument is that all professionals deemed the outstanding work around stress and life management to be either non-essential or suitable for delivery in the community. However, the panel was entitled to depart from professional opinion where it gave clear and reasoned justification, which it did. It noted that the underlying drivers of the Applicant’s offending remain unassessed due to his continued denial, and that some risk indicators could only be provisionally rated. It expressed concern about the over-reliance on external supervision in the absence of developed internal controls, particularly given the complexity of the index offending and the Applicant’s limited insight into risk in a community setting. These were matters of legitimate concern that went to the heart of risk manageability.[35]The panel also carefully considered the Applicant’s argument that custody is more stressful than the community and that his behaviour would only improve on release. While this is a credible position, the panel was not obliged to accept it, particularly where the Applicant himself reported feeling overwhelmed by various unresolved issues, including his immigration status, housing, and separation from family. It was not irrational for the panel to conclude that these pressures, rather than diminishing, could create new risk dynamics without pre-release work to address them.[36]Ultimately, the decision is thorough, detailed, and clearly rooted in a structured analysis of risk. The panel acknowledged the positive factors in the Applicant’s case but reached a cautious, rational and defensible conclusion based on the available evidence. The application for reconsideration reflects a disagreement with the outcome but does not persuade me that the decision was outside the range of reasonable responses open to the panel. Decision[37]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 30 July 2025