Williams, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 174 (22 August 2025) [2025] PBRA 174

PBRA

Williams, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 174 (22 August 2025)

[2025] PBRA 174 · 2017-05-02

[1]This is an application by Williams ('the Applicant') for reconsideration of a decision of a panel of the Parole Board ('the Board').

[2]The Applicant is serving an extended determinate sentence ('EDS') which was imposed on 2 May 2017 for several robberies ('the index offences'). The circumstances of those offences will be discussed below.

[3]On 9 February 2022 the Applicant became eligible for early release on licence and on 5 January 2023 a panel of the Parole Board directed his release. On 2 February 2023 he was duly released on licence.

[4]On 17 November 2023 he was recalled to prison as a result of allegations that he had committed further offences. The circumstances of those allegations will also be discussed below.

[5]Following his recall his case was referred by the Secretary of State for Justice ('the Respondent' for the purposes of this decision) to the Parole Board to decide whether he should be re-released on licence.

[6]On 14 May 2024 the Applicant was acquitted by a jury on all the allegations.

[7]In July 2025 his case was considered at an oral hearing (the date is erroneously stated in the panel's decision as 12 March 2025). Their decision was not to direct his re-release on licence.

[8]On 23 July 2025 the Applicant submitted an application for reconsideration of the panel's decision. The Application for Reconsideration

[9]Rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended by the Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2024) provides that in eligible cases applications for reconsideration of panel decisions may be made either by the prisoner or by the Respondent.

[10]Rule 28(2) specifies the types of cases which are eligible for reconsideration. They include cases, like the present one, in which the prisoner is serving an EDS sentence.

[11]A reconsideration application may be made on the ground(a) that the panel's decision contained an error of law and/or

(b) that it was irrational and/or

[12]In this case the application for reconsideration of the panel's decision has been made on the ground of irrationality. No error of law or procedural unfairness is suggested.

[13]The application was made within the time limit for applications of this kind and is therefore eligible for reconsideration.

[14]I am one of the members of the Board who are authorised (as 'Reconsideration Assessment Panels') to make decisions on reconsideration applications, and this case has been allocated to me.

[15]The documents which have been provided to me and which I have considered for the purposes of this application are:(a) the dossier of papers provided by the Respondent for the Board's review of the Applicant's case: the dossier now runs to 343 numbered pages and includes a copy of the panel's decision;

(b) the representations made by the Applicant in support of this application for reconsideration; and

(c) an e-mail from the Public Protection Casework Section of the Ministry of Justice ("PPCS") stating on behalf of the Respondent that she does not wish to make any representations in response to this application. Background and history of the case

[16]The Applicant is now aged 45. He has been before the courts on a number of occasions for offences including burglaries, causing grievous harm, wounding with intent and possession of a firearm with intent. The robberies for which he is serving his present sentence involved targeting women who lived in wealthy areas and were wearing expensive jewellery.

[17]The Applicant pleaded guilty to the robberies and also to possession of criminal property (the proceeds of crimes). The proceeds had a value in excess of £50,000. On 2 May 2017 he received the EDS sentence for the robberies and a concurrent determinate sentence for possession of criminal property.

[18]The EDS sentence is made up of a custodial term of 8 years and an extended licence period of 3 years. The sentence will expire in October 2027.

[19]The Applicant made good progress in prison and sought out offending behaviour work which he could undertake to reduce his risk to the public. He was found unsuitable for the accredited Thinking Skills Programme but was offered another programme which he successfully completed. In June 2021 he was transferred to an open prison where, in the main, he continued his good progress.

[20]On 2 February 2023 he was released on licence at the direction of a panel of the Board. When on licence he is reported to have engaged well with supervision by his community offender manager ('COM') and to have demonstrated the capacity to lead a law abiding and constructive lifestyle.

[21]The incident which led to his recall to prison occurred on 14 September 2023. On 17 September his COM received the following information from the police on the basis of which he understandably submitted a request to the Respondent for a recall which, equally understandably, the Respondent ordered:

"On 17th November 2023, police intelligence indicated that [the Applicant] was arrested for two counts of sexual assault and two counts of false imprisonment. The outline of the offence suggests that he confined two 16-year-old females in a bathroom, coerced them into consuming alcohol and cocaine, and subsequently sexually touched one of the victims. These alleged incidents took place on 14th September 2023. As a result, [the Applicant] has been charged with sexual assault and false imprisonment x2. He is presently detained in custody pending further legal proceedings. "

[22]These allegations were hotly denied by the Applicant who gave the police a detailed account of the incident to the police when they questioned him about it.

[23]Following his recall the Applicant's case was referred by the Respondent to the Board to decide whether to direct his re-release on licence. There was some delay in the progress of the Board's review of the Applicant's case because he was awaiting his trial on the above allegations.

[24]The trial took place in May 2024 and the Applicant was acquitted on all counts. The review was then resumed and an oral hearing was directed. It was scheduled to take place on 12 March 2025 but had to be adjourned because of the failure by the police to comply with a direction for information from them. The information was then provided and the hearing eventually took place in July 2025 (the date was stated in the panel's decision as 12 March 2025 but that was clearly a mistake).

[25]The hearing was conducted by a two member panel comprising an independent chair and another independent member (independent simply means that the member is not a psychiatrist or a psychologist or a judge or retired judge).

[26]The Applicant was represented by his solicitor. The dossier provided by the Respondent for the Board's review of the case contained 330 numbered pages and included the information from the police.

[27]The panel took oral evidence from the Applicant, the prison offender manager ('POM') and the COM. The Applicant sought a direction for re-release on licence which was supported by both professional witnesses. However the panel decided that the Applicant should remain in prison to undertake what they regarded as core risk reduction work.

[28]On 23 July 2025 the Applicant submitted his own handwritten representations for reconsideration of the panel's decision. The Relevant Law The test for release on licence

[29]The Codified Public Protection Test specifies that a panel of the Board can only direct a prisoner's release on licence if it is satisfied that the prisoner's continued confinement in prison is no longer necessary for the protection of the public; the panel can only be so satisfied if it considers that, if the prisoner were to be released into the community, there would be no more than a minimal risk of his committing a further offence of a kind which might result in serious harm to somebody else. The rules relating to reconsideration of decisions

[30]Rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended) provides, so far as is relevant for present purposes, that:(1) A party may apply to the Board for the case to be reconsidered on the grounds that the decision (a) contains an error of law; (b) is irrational; or (c) is procedurally unfair.

(2) Decisions are eligible for reconsideration only where the prisoner is serving (a) an indeterminate sentence; (b) an extended sentence (c) a determinate sentence subject to initial release by the Board; or (d) a serious terrorism sentence.

(3) An application for a provisional decision to be reconsidered under paragraph (1) must be made and served on the other party no later than 21 days after the decision is sent to the parties. The definition of irrationality

[31]The power of the courts to interfere with a decision of a competent public authority on the ground of irrationality was defined in Associated Provincial Houses Ltd -v- Wednesbury Corporation 1948 1 KB 223 by Lord Greene as follows:

"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 Parole Board is a public authority for that purpose, and the Wednesbury test therefore applies to applications to the High Court for judicial review of a panel's decision. It also applies to applications to Reconsideration Panels of the Board for reconsideration of a panel's decision on the ground of irrationality.

[32]In R (DSD and others) -v- the Parole Board

2018 EWHC 694

(Admin) ('the Worboys case') a Divisional Court applied this test to Parole Board decisions in these words:

" 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 same test of course applies to " no release" decisions.

[33]In R (on the application of Wells) -v- Parole Board

2019 EWHC 2710

(Admin) Mr Justice Saini set out what he described as a more nuanced approach in modern public law. This approach is " 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 formulation of the 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) .

[34]As was made clear by Mr Justice Saini, this is not a different test from the Wednesbury test. The interpretation of (and application of) the Wednesbury test in parole hearings (as explained in the Wednesbury and DSD cases) was of course binding on Mr Justice Saini. It is similarly binding on Reconsideration Panels.

[35]It follows from these principles that in considering an application for reconsideration a Reconsideration Panel cannot substitute its own view of the evidence for that of the panel who heard the witnesses and were able to assess their reliability. The Reconsideration Panel will only direct reconsideration on the ground of irrationality if the Wednesbury test is satisfied.

[36]A panel of the Board is not bound by the recommendations of professional witnesses, even if they are unanimous: its task is to make its own assessment of the prisoner's risk of serious harm to the public and its manageability on licence. However it is well established that, if the panel rejects the unanimous recommendations of the professionals, it must provide reasons for doing so and those reasons must stand up to close examination, otherwise its decision may be regarded as irrational. Equally if the panel provides no reasons at all, its decision may be found to be irrational because the Reconsideration Member (or the High Court if the case is considered by it) will have no means of knowing what the panel's reasons were and whether they would stand up to close examination. The application for reconsideration of the panel's decision

[37]The Applicant's application is well presented and very clear, for which he is to be complimented. I will set out below his arguments in favour of reconsideration so that they can be considered alongside the panel's reasons for their decision. The reply on behalf of the Respondent

[38]As noted above the Respondent has offered no representations in respect of this application. Discussion

[39]It is convenient first to set out first the relevant passages of the panel's decision, then the Applicant's arguments and then my conclusion as to whether the panel's reasons for rejecting the recommendations of the professionals stand up to close examination. The panel's reasons

[40]The following passages in the panel's decision are of particular importance for present purposes: The Applicant's offending

[41]"Of particular concern are [the Applicant's] convictions for assault with intent to resist arrest, causing grievous bodily harm, possessing controlled drugs, wounding with intent, and possessing firearms with intent. These convictions show a pattern of aggressive and violent offending potentially linked to substance misuse. There is also evidence of a failure to comply with bail, which gives rise to concern about compliance with supervision. "The sentencing Judge for the index offence noted that [the Applicant] 'received a lot of training in prison in an attempt to prevent you from reverting to violence again. Over a period of many months, you targeted vulnerable victims who, as luck would have it, were not harmed very badly physically, but that, it seems, was a matter of luck in the heat of the moment.'" The recall

[42]"The circumstances of [the Applicant's] recall were that he was arrested and charged with two counts of sexual assault and two counts of false imprisonment. In summary it was alleged that on 14 September 2023 he confined two 16-year-old females in a bathroom, coerced them into consuming alcohol and cocaine, and subsequently sexually touched one of the victims. [The Applicant] was ultimately acquitted. "In his interview with the police, [he] admitted approaching the two females, giving them money for a cab to come to his address, and sharing alcohol with them, which they left the accommodation to purchase. They had attempted to leave at about 02:30hrs, but their sister was not there to collect them, and no cabs were available until 06:00hrs. He denied kidnapping the girls. "When asked by the panel, [the Applicant] reiterated the explanation he gave to the police. He added that he had given the girls a cuddle as they got into the cab. He accepted that he did not know the girls and thought they were older than 16. He said that his plan was for them to 'chill.' He denied offering the girls drugs or making them take vodka shots and maintained that that they were not drunk. He maintained that he had only used drugs on this occasion, and had one beer at the club he had visited. He accepted that they had been laying on the bed, as there was no other furniture. He accepted that he had spent between £15 and £20 on the two girls but had expected nothing in return. He accepted that he should not have ridden his motorcycle after consuming cannabis. "When pressed on why he thought this was a good idea, he said that 'when you go out, you meet people', and 'I did not force them to come to my place'. [He] said that his partner had not been happy but after threatening to leave him, had accepted that he had no bad intentions. [The Applicant] accepted that he had placed himself in a risky situation but thought that the girls were older." The COM's evidence

[43]"[The COM] reported in December 2023, that he was not supporting [the Applicant's] release, as the recall allegations remained under investigation. It was reported that [the Applicant] was contesting his recall. His custodial behaviour was reportedly positive. "By the time of an update report dated 12/06/24 [the Applicant] had been acquitted of the recall allegations. The COM concluded that he could be safely managed in the community. "A further report dated 15/01/25, cited significant progress made by [the Applicant] during his time in custody, his work ethic, and positive engagement with the prison regime, for supporting his re-release." "The COM reported that he had been supervising [the Applicant] from shortly after his release. He considered [the Applicant] had engaged appropriately and demonstrated insight into his offending. The COM said that [the Applicant] had provided him with a similar account of the recall allegations. He had challenged him about the allegation that there was white powder or cocaine, which he had denied, and maintained his innocence. "The COM could not shed any insight on [the Applicant's] decision making but said that he had maintained innocent intentions and planned to chill. There had been no concerns regarding substance misuse. The COM could not identify how the risk management plan would manage similar events, highlighting that he had not completed the Thinking Skills Programme, but planned that he completes another programme [Building Choices] in the community. The COM reported that he had added licence conditions not to reside with or have unsupervised contact with under 18s. The COM considered [the Applicant] understood his licence conditions and had agreed to more regular drug testing and to engage with CGL [Change Grow Live]. "However, the COM accepted that there had been no warning signs to the allegations that led to recall, and that from [the Applicant's] account of events, he had planned to reside at his partner's address that night, without approval." The POM's evidence

[44]In his evidence the POM detailed a number of negative reports of the Applicant's behaviour in prison, none of which would seem to be of any real significance in the assessment of the Applicant's risk of serious harm to the public. The POM then stated that he considered the Applicant was doing well in custody. He added the following points:

"[The Applicant] maintained contact with his partner, parents and a few friends, by telephone. He had one visit from his partner, plus regular video visits with his partner. The POM considered his partner and father as protective factors. "[The Applicant] reported to the POM that he had not been thinking properly at the time of the index offence and being greedy. The POM detailed his conversations with [the Applicant] regarding his recall for kidnap, false imprisonment and sexual assault, of which he was acquitted, and which he had denied. However, he had not pressed him about the matters he had admitted to in police interviews. The POM considered [the Applicant] to have completed his sentence plan by completing workbooks, and that the proposed release risk management plan [was] suitable to manage [the Applicant] in the community."

The Applicant's evidence as summarised by the panel

[45]"[The Applicant] told the panel that he had last smoked cannabis when he was on licence, as recorded in the recall allegations. He said he enjoyed the routine provided by the Approved Premises ('AP'), spending time at the gym and with his family, seeking work, and felt he was doing well. He was shocked at being recalled but felt that he had done the best he could in custody. "[He] told the panel that he had a better understanding of how alcohol and drugs could lead to negative associations and behaviour. He was enjoying barbering and saw that as a possible line of employment in the future. He was interested in mentoring people to help others avoid a criminal lifestyle. He saw his partner and family as protective factors and hoped that employment would add to this. "[The Applicant] had seen his release risk management plan and had no concerns about the licence conditions. He was happy to be in an AP and hoped probation would assist with move on accommodation. He said that he would avoid similar issues to his recall by spending more time with his partner." The panel's decision

[46]Under the heading of the manageability of risk the panel stated:

"The panel accepted that there was no evidence of [the Applicant] using aggression or violence since the index offence and considered that the proposed release risk management plan, including supervision, standard and additional licence conditions, could, with [the Applicant's] engagement, deal with the identified risks of the need for education, training and employment, poor financial management, negative lifestyle and associates, and substance misuse. However, the panel considers that this plan does not address the identified risk of his attitude towards offending, poor thinking skills, or lack of victim awareness."

[47]Under the heading of 'Conclusion' the panel stated:

"[The Applicant's] index offence involved serious offending and caused serious harm. He has previous convictions that demonstrate his willingness to use weapons and violence. There is evidence of past failure to comply with trust and supervision, including whilst on licence. "[The Applicant] is given credit for completing over 9 months on licence. However, without going behind his acquittal for the alleged offending, the circumstances of the recall demonstrate poor thinking skills and a lack of insight into risk on [the Applicant's] behalf. "[The Applicant's] custodial behaviour has been broadly positive, and he was able to account for reported shortcomings. Whilst the panel accepted that [the Applicant] had completed some workbooks since his recall, he had not completed any accredited offending behaviour work to reduce his risk to the public because [this sentence was not completed] "

The panel considers that [the Applicant] presents a low risk of reoffending with a high risk of serious harm to the public, with a medium risk to children and staff because his preparedness to use aggression and violence to further his own aims places others at risk of physical or psychological harm. The panel were also concerned [about] [the Applicant's] motivation for inviting females back to his address and at the very least being prepared to finance their attendance, including providing them with alcohol. "The panel took into account the legal representative's closing submissions and carefully considered the potential of [the Applicant] being released into the community and not re-offending, deciding that unless he addresses his thinking skills, further work in the community was unlikely to succeed and the risk of offending would remain. The risk of offending and harm [the Applicant] presents is not manageable within the plan, given his level of risk. Therefore, the panel does not direct release. "The panel considered that there is core risk reduction work for [the Applicant] to complete and that this should take place in closed conditions." The Applicant's representations

[48]These are as follows:(1) " No criminal charges for the arrest charges . While I acknowledge that my initial involvement in the situation was unwise, I was ultimately found not guilty of all charges for which I was arrested. I take full responsibility for placing myself in that position, but the absence of a criminal conviction should weigh heavily in assessing my risk to the community.

(2) " Demonstrated rehabilitation and completion of relevant courses . I have actively engaged in all available rehabilitative programmes offered by probation since being recalled. This includes victim awareness, thinking skills and drug awareness - meaning I have fulfilled every possible requirement at this time. My commitment to self-improvement reflects my readiness to reintegrate responsibly."

(3) Alleged incident with a guard. This relates to a report of an incident which the Applicant has always said was inaccurately reported. This is therefore a mere allegation in respect of a matter on which the panel made no finding and to which they attached no weight so I need not say any more about it.

(4) "Exemplary conduct in education programmes. Contrary to any claims of disruption my educational record shows consistent excellence including being named learner of the week on numerous occasions with only positive feedback from instructors. My dedication to education underscores my commitment to lawful productive behaviour.

(5) "Mental health support and counselling. Regarding past comments made in the barber shop, the psychological effects of prolonged incarceration may have impacted on my judgment in social interactions. I was not always aware of what jokes or conversations were appropriate, but I want to emphasise that these remarks were never intended to cause harm and cannot reasonably be deemed a risk to public safety. Upon release I am committed to seeking mental health support and counselling to better understand and manage social boundaries. With the full support of my family, probation services and counselling I will receive guidance on appropriateness of communication ensuring I reintegrate positively and responsibly." This is impressive and encouraging but I doubt whether I can properly take it into account in my decision as it is unclear whether this point was raised at the hearing. Decision

[49]I have considered all of the above material very carefully and I have come to the conclusion that the panel's reasons for rejecting the representations of the professional witnesses do not stand up to close examination, and I must therefore find that their decision was irrational.

[50]The central point in this case is whether, as the panel decided, the Applicant needs to stay in prison to complete core risk reduction work to address his thinking skills. I am not persuaded that their reasoning supports that proposition.

[51]At an early stage in his sentence the Applicant applied for the accredited Thinking Skills Programme but it was found that he did not meet the criteria for participation in that programme so he was offered and completed an alternative programme (I imagine not accredited) in its place.

[52]Since then the Applicant has progressed well through his sentence and is clearly well motivated to lead a law-abiding and productive life. During the substantial period when he was on licence in the community that appeared to be what he was doing.

[53]Since his recall he has not been offered a place on the accredited programme but instead he was offered and accepted work on workbooks to address his thinking skills and it was proposed by the COM that he should complete what the COM regarded as a suitable programme in the community.

[54]The panel's opinion that the Applicant now needs to undertake further work on thinking skills in custody is clearly based on the recall incident. They did not seek to make any finding of fact contrary to the Applicant's version of events but they took the view that on his own account his behaviour on that occasion indicated that he posed a risk of serious harm to the public which needed to be reduced by completion of the accredited programme.

[55]I have examined the Applicant's account of the incident and I cannot see that it affords any real evidence to support that view. The Applicant's behaviour was certainly risky but the risk was more to himself than to anybody else. It did not result in serious harm to anybody. He has clearly learned a painful lesson from it and he is unlikely to repeat his mistake. The facts that he was riding his motor cycle having used cannabis, that he allowed or encouraged the young women to drink alcohol and that he had not sought permission from his COM to spend the night with his partner are all matters which fall some way short of amounting to evidence that he poses a risk of serious harm to the public.

[56]Whilst this is the principal point on which my decision is based there are other points which support it. These are:(1) The panel stated that they considered that the risk management plan did not address the identified risk of his attitude towards offending, poor thinking skills or lack of victim awareness. I have referred above to thinking skills and I can find very little evidence that the Applicant currently has an inappropriate attitude to offending or that he currently lacks victim awareness.

(2) The panel clearly attached significant weight to the Applicant's past offending. They do not appear to have attached sufficient weight to the changes which he has made during the intervening period.

(3) The panel acknowledged and agreed probation's assessment of the Applicant's risk of re-offending as being low, as it clearly is, but they also appear to have placed significant weight on the assessment that if he were to re-offend he would pose a high risk of serious harm to others. Of course it is the case that if he were to re-offend in anything like the manner of his past offences there would be a high risk of his causing serious harm to somebody but on the whole of the evidence it is clear that the risk of that arising is very small.

(4) The panel referred to the Applicant as having a lack of insight into his risk: this again fails to recognise the substantial achievement he has made in in reducing and recognising that risk.

[57]For the above reasons I am satisfied that the Applicant's application for reconsideration must succeed. Jeremy Roberts 22 August 2025