“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 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.”
“The Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Parole Review on the basis that the decision in this case was irrational, procedurally unfair and went against the weight of the evidence.” “The Prison Offender Manager gave evidence with regard to documented behaviours and sought to rely upon the same to demonstrate that the Applicant needed to demonstrate a period of stability before he was safe to release. However, in her evidence she accepted that some of the documented entries supporting her view had been made erroneously or were inaccurate. This was, to some extent supported by evidence in the Applicant’s possession that was presented to the Panel. She also accepted that the prison had been subjected to valid and serious criticisms during this review period as documented by the Prisons Inspector. In our submission this called into question her assessment of the manageability of risk. The prison psychologist assessed that risk had been reduced, that risk of violence in the community was moderate with low imminence and she considered that the release risk management plan was sufficiently robust to manage risk. She also considered that there would be warning signs that would be identified that would indicate any potential increase in risk of serious harm likely to impact on behaviour that could cross the serious harm threshold. The Community Offender Manager agreed with the prison psychologist. Whilst she assessed that the Applicant posed a high risk of serious harm should he re-offend, she assessed that risk was not imminent, that there would be clear warning signs of any potential increase in risk and so risk could be managed. All witnesses agreed that the Applicant’s history of negative behaviours during the review period directly related to his environment and the regime rather than being linked to risk of serious harm and those behaviours were not offence paralleling. Indeed, he did not display any behaviours that would cross the serious harm threshold despite being subjected to the use of excessive force and despite displaying negative behaviours born out of frustration with the regime. The Applicant will say that the panel relied solely upon the evidence of the POM in reaching their decision together with the documented entries about his negative behaviours and failed to attribute any weight to the evidence undermining some of those entries and without attributing any weight to the evidence presented by other professionals as well as his own evidence. He believes that the Panel also failed to attribute any weight to the fact that he has not behaved in a violent way for many years. In addition, he submits that the evidence in respect of his negative behaviours did not show any behaviours that crossed the serious harm threshold. This view was reiterated by both the prison psychologist and the COM. Therefore, he will assert that the amount [sic] weight placed upon the evidence from the negative entries and security information was wholly inappropriate and unfair…”
“In her report, the POM acknowledged that whilst the Applicant may have felt frustrated over the previous few months following the set aside a [sic] decision it did not excuse his behaviour. However, he claimed that he would work with Probation in the community if released and abide by his licence conditions. The POM acknowledged that the Applicant was unlikely to progress at the same prison and she said that the working relationships between him and staff are ‘damaged beyond repair’. Nevertheless, she felt he needed to evidence a period of stability and positive behaviour in custody prior to being released.” “In her evidence, the POM spoke of the well-known problems at the prison, noted in various inspections that could have added to the Applicant’s frustrations. These related particularly to staffing issues which often resulted in prisoners being locked in their cells for lengthy periods. There were also issues relating to drugs, mobile phones, weapons and drones flying in illicit materials. The POM spoke of the difficult relationship that the Applicant has had with her predecessor. She said that she had endeavoured to work with the Applicant. There had [sic] several conversations during which at times the Applicant was talking over her. He also appeared to have a good relationship with some members of staff. She conceded that some [sic] the younger members of staff may have had poor communication skills. She accepted that the Applicant had not displayed actual violence. She expressed concerns as to how the Applicant would behave in the community if he felt disrespected or ruminated about situations; she expressed concern as to whether or not he would be able to walk away and handle situations in a prosocial way. She remained concerned about his poor emotional responses for example when he had been abusive to healthcare staff. She was aware that on occasions the Applicant would smoke cannabis although there were no reports of him being continually under the influence. She was also uncertain as to how far the Applicant’s family would be a protective factor since they had not appeared to have prevented previous offending. She noted the Risk Management Plan which included a period in a PIPE AP and engagement with MBT but she was not supportive of release at the present time.”
“In the prison psychologist’s report dated8 May 2025 , she considered that the Applicant did not present as an imminent risk of physical violence although she conceded that non-compliance specifically in terms of his relationships with professionals was of concern. She concluded that the Applicant’s risk could be managed in the community following a successful period of engagement with IIRMS prior to release to support him and developing his insight, coping and communication skills as well as the professionals’ ability to work with him in a psychologically informed way. She said that this was considered ‘integral to his future risk management’ before he was released in the community.” “The prison psychologist supporting release assessed that non-compliance was the main area of concern in the event of the Applicant’s release. She described his recent behaviour as a mixture of feelings of being treated unfairly yet not dealing with it appropriately and still treating the prison as an antisocial lifestyle. She also believed that he experienced a lack of hope following the set aside a decision. She said that the Applicant clearly had problems dealing with operational staff whilst at the same time wishing to display an element of ‘bravado’ in front of other prisoners. However, she noted that there had been no evidence of actual violence and she did not believe that there was an imminent risk of serious harm if released. She believed that he still needed to develop skills but that this could be achieved through a period in a PIPE AP and with MBT. She believed his main risk was from verbal aggression and that staff should be able to cope. She saw no need for a move to a Category C establishment…” “She confirmed possible warning signs that she had set out in her report which included: anti-social peers; lack of stability including problems with finance and accommodation; possible increased drug use; family issues including pressure to provide for his family; feelings of injustice; poor emotional management; lack of transparency/conflict with professionals; non-compliance; and lack of purposeful activity including employment.”
“In her4 June 2025 report, the COM agreed that the Applicant would benefit from engagement with the IIRMS-Resettle project designed for individuals with complex interpersonal difficulties; participation in the programme required a minimum two-year commitment whilst on licence. The COM discussed the situation with the IIRMS manager who reported that the assessment process takes approximately six months and includes initial paper screening followed by a minimum of three in-custody interviews. The current waiting list is approximately 18 months with an anticipated programme start date around May 2027; however, in-reach support could begin upon acceptance to prepare the Applicant for transition into the full programme. The COM suggested that alternative interventions could be accessed more promptly in the community via a PIPE AP and Mentalisation Based Therapy (MBT) groups via the OPD pathway. She noted that the Applicant had not yet consented to IIRMS in the light of the extended waiting period.”
“As regards his recent behaviour, whilst he sought to deny or downplay several of the incidents, he did seem to accept that he had reacted verbally in an inappropriate way of several occasions. He claimed that his response was very much linked to the conditions in prison and the approach of staff and he did not believe that it would be replicated in the community. He spoke about the appalling conditions in the prison with toilets not working and lack of fresh drinking water. He was very concerned as he had a potential cancer diagnosis as well as thyroid problems. He agreed that at times he responded poorly to staff using expressions such as ‘knob-head’ and that did he not want to be seen as a ‘pushover’ in front of other prisoners. He was particularly aggrieved at the incident on3 April 2025 when he was forcibly removed to the segregation unit for reasons which he claimed were entirely unjustified. He said that he received serious injuries which were recorded on paper but no photographs were ever taken. He read to the panel some extracts from prison documents in which it appears that some of his complaints made to the Prison Governor were accepted. He admitted using cannabis on occasions although he said it was clear that he was not addicted; however, he did admit that had there been drug tests (which he had refused), he would have tested positive. Overall, he said that he now had a much better concept of life wanting to spend time with his mother, sister, daughter and family and determined to live a pro-social lifestyle. He said that he would be willing to go to a PIPE AP for the time required and thereafter hoped to live with his mother although recognised safeguarding issues involving his niece. He said he had previously worked as a chef which he could recommence and also had trained as a carpenter.”
“The panel has considered all the written and oral evidence as well as the closing submissions from the legal representative. The panel needs to consider the risks of the public if the Applicant was to be now released not only until the end of his sentence but for the foreseeable period thereafter. The index offence involved a high level of cruelty both to the victim and to her parents. The Applicant and his associates were involved in a drugs world where problems were solved by the use or threats of violence without any concern as to the harm to victims. The Applicant expressed to the panel a level of victim awareness although the panel remained unconvinced. Whilst the panel accepts that the Applicant was extremely upset with the set aside decision and also had continuing problems coping with some staff at the prison, his behaviour which led to the set aside decision which has continued notwithstanding the parole window clearly indicates to the panel that the Applicant’s coping skills and emotional response certainly in custody require further work and at least an ability to display a period of sustained good behaviour. The panel do not accept that this high volume of negative entries and poor response to staff is likely to suddenly end if released; to that extent it disagrees with the evidence from the prison psychologist and the COM. It appears to the panel that the Applicant has still a poor attitude to authority, continues to display anti-social behaviour, poor problem-solving skills and will push boundaries. The panel do not believe that he will be compliant if released and there remains the risk of conflict and possible physical harm once he is in the community. The panel is satisfied that further core offending work needs to be completed in custody and the Applicant needs to display a sustained period of compliant and pro-social behaviour before the panel can be satisfied that he can be safely managed in the community. Accordingly, the panel concludes that it is necessary for the protection of the public that he remains detained and release is not directed.”