Parkinson, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 171 (14 August 2025) [2025] PBRA 171

PBRA
Parkinson, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 171 (14 August 2025)
[2025] PBRA 171 · 2025-06-23
[1]This is an application by Parkinson (“the Applicant”) for reconsideration of a decision of a Panel of the Parole Board (“the Panel”), at an oral hearing which took place on 23 June 2025, not to direct his 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.[3]I have considered the application on the papers. These are: · The dossier provided by the Secretary of State (“the Respondent”) which now contains 368 numbered pages. · The Panel’s decision letter dated 4 July 2025 (“DL”). · The application for Reconsideration (“the application”) submitted on behalf of the Applicant by his solicitor. Request for Reconsideration[4]The application is undated but it is eligible and I assume was submitted in time.[5]Reconsideration is said to be sought on the basis of irrationality and I will consider the grounds put forward in support within the Discussion section of my decision. Background[6]The Applicant is now aged 36. On 25 April 2014 he received an extended determinate sentence of imprisonment for causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily harm comprising a custodial element of 11 years and an extended licence period of three years. On the same occasion he received a concurrent sentence of five months imprisonment for wounding. The sentence expiry date is given as December 2027.[7]On 1 March 2012 whilst out drinking and in the course of a disturbance the Applicant punched the victim to the jaw causing significant injury.[8]Whilst on bail on 14 December 2013 following a prolonged incident the Applicant attacked the victim in the street, punching him repeatedly to the head and causing a number of injuries including a fractured cheekbone which required hospital treatment.[9]The Applicant’s criminal record of convictions, from the age of 12, reveals a pattern of violent and aggressive behaviour including convictions for wounding, assaults, affray and threatening to damage property. There have been police domestic violence callouts and he has acknowledged being abusive towards the mother of one of his daughters.[10]The Applicant was progressed to open prison conditions in August 2020 but recalled to the closed estate after three weeks due to his concerning behaviours.[11]He was initially released in September 2021 and recalled in April 2022, subsequently admitting to drug use in the community.[12]He was released again in December 2023 to approved premises. Over the following weeks there were concerns about his attitude towards staff and other residents, he was found to be under the influence of alcohol and tested positive for cocaine use which he has now admitted. He was eventually recalled in March 2024 after, again, failing to return for his curfew.[13]This was the first review since his more recent recall to prison, which the Panel found to be appropriate and which the Applicant eventually conceded at the hearing. Current parole review[14]The Applicant’s case was referred to the Parole Board by the Respondent to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to direct his release. The case was allocated to a two-person Panel which comprised two independent members, one of whom chaired the Panel.[15]The Applicant was represented by his solicitor who sought a direction for release.[16]At the hearing evidence was given by: a) The prison offender manager (POM). b) The community offender manager (COM). c) The Applicant. The Relevant Law[17]The Panel correctly sets out in the DL the test for release.[18]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)). Irrationality[19]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.[20]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. ”
[21]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).[22]As was made clear by Saini J this is not a different test to the Wednesbury test. The interpretation, and application, of the Wednesbury test in parole hearings as explained in DSD was binding on Saini J.[23]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.[24]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. Reconsideration as a discretionary remedy[25]Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. That means that, even if an error of law, irrationality, or procedural unfairness is established, the Reconsideration Member considering the case is not obliged to direct reconsideration of the panel’s decision. The Reconsideration Member can decline to make such a direction having taken into account the particular circumstances of the case, the potential for a different decision to be reached by a new panel, and any delay caused by a grant of reconsideration. That discretion must of course be exercised in a way which is fair to both parties. The reply on behalf of the Secretary of State[26]By email dated 29 July 2025 PPCS confirmed that the Respondent offers no representations in response to the application. Discussion[27]In dealing with the grounds for reconsideration, it is necessary to stress certain matters of basic importance. The first is that the Reconsideration Mechanism is not a process by which the judgement of the Panel when assessing risk can be lightly interfered with. Nor is it a mechanism in which the member carrying out the reconsideration is entitled to substitute his/her view of the facts in place of those found by the Panel, unless, of course, it is manifestly obvious that there was an error of fact of an egregious nature which can be shown to have directly contributed to the conclusion arrived at by the Panel.[28]The second matter of material importance is that when deciding whether a decision of the Parole Board was irrational, due deference has to be given to the expertise of the Parole Board in making decisions relating to parole.[29]Finally, where a Panel arrives at a conclusion, exercising its judgement based on the evidence before it and having regard to the fact they saw and heard the witnesses, it would be inappropriate to direct that the decision be reconsidered unless it is manifestly obvious that there are compelling reasons for interfering with the decision of the Panel.[30]I move now to consider the grounds put forward by the Applicant.[31]Through his solicitors the Applicant challenges the Panel's decision as unreasonable “ based on the evidence considered” and proceeds, in essence, to invite me to take a different view of the evidence which the Panel read and heard by repeating the submissions presumably made on the Applicant’s behalf at the hearing. This is to misunderstand my role and the test which I must apply when considering an application for reconsideration based on the ground of irrationality.[32]I find that the Panel gave careful consideration to the views of the two professional witnesses and the evidence before it.[33]The Panel was aware that the Applicant had not reoffended prior to recall and that he had a job offer available to him. Further, whilst the Applicant agreed that his custodial behaviour represented a pattern of poor decision-making, the Panel accepted that he was now more settled, maintained Enhanced IEP status and demonstrated a good attitude at work, accruing a number of positive comments.[34]However, the POM indicated in evidence that the Applicant could lack internal controls while the COM stated that, although he could present well in custody, he was unable to maintain this on release and questioned whether his positive engagement and insight demonstrated in custody might be manipulative in order to gain release.[35]In addition, the COM pointed to a pattern of failing to engage fully to address his drug use and a lack of appreciation by the Applicant of the need to admit difficulties prior to, rather than after, recall and to update staff as to problems and to ask for support.[36]The Panel noted the professional support for release from the POM and COM and that the Applicant had engaged with the substance misuse team in prison and completed relevant in-cell work but went on to give detailed reasons for not accepting the professional recommendations, finding, in particular, that: · The Applicant had outstanding risk factors in that his attitude to authority meant that managing his risks was challenging. · In line with the COM’s assessment, his pushing of boundaries amounted to manipulative behaviour and that this, together with a lack of honesty with professionals, meant that the Panel was not satisfied that the proposed risk management plan would be likely to be effective since it would require evidence of change and internal controls on the part of the Applicant to manage his own risk. · The Panel was not confident that he had yet developed the necessary internal controls to manage his risks and there was relatively recent evidence of his failing to be honest with professionals. · On each of the occasions on which he was released back into the community, the Applicant had failed to comply with licence conditions and had demonstrated active risk factors. · The Panel agreed with the assessments that found the Applicant to pose a high risk of serious harm to the public and a high risk of intimate partner violence.[37]Finally , I find nothing unreasonable in the Panel finding that, while the Applicant’s new partner appeared to be pro-social, this relationship had only developed since his recall to prison and was, therefore, yet to be tested in the community.[38]I am satisfied that the Panel gave careful consideration to the evidence before it, attributed weight where appropriate (which is a matter pre-eminently for the Panel) and arrived at its conclusions, which it set out in appropriate detail, following an exercise of its judgement.[39]I am further satisfied that the Panel properly considered the views of the professional witnesses in deciding on the question of release and, while not bound to accept their assessments, made clear its findings and its reasons for deciding that the Applicant did not meet the relevant test for release. Decision[40]The reconsideration process is not an appeal against the original decision and I find that the Application is without merit and, for the reasons I have given and applying the appropriate test, I do not consider that the decision was irrational and, accordingly, the application for reconsideration is refused. Peter H. F. Jones 14 August 2025