Adisi, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 182 (29 August 2025) [2025] PBRA 182

PBRA

Adisi, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 182 (29 August 2025)

[2025] PBRA 182 · 2025-07-21

[1]This is an application by Adisi (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of a panel of the Parole Board dated 21 July 2025 making no direction for release following an oral hearing on 20 May 2025.

[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 the application for reconsideration, the decision and the dossier. Request for Reconsideration

[4]The application for reconsideration is dated 6 August 2025.

[5]The grounds for seeking a reconsideration are that, as the evidence did not justify refusing to direct release, the wrong legal test must have been applied and/or that the decision was irrational in that no properly directed panel could have refused to direct release on the evidence that they heard. Background

[6]On 13 October 2017 the Applicant was sentenced to an extended determinate sentence of 15 years for offences including causing grievous bodily harm with intent and kidnap. The custodial period was 11 years and there was an extended licence of 4 years. The Applicant was transferred to an open prison in November 2023 where he had remained. Apart from an occasion in April 2024 when the Applicant was found in possession of a mobile phone and was subject to an adjudication, the Applicant had made good progress in open. Following the hearing on 20 May 2025, there was what the panel described as an ‘adverse development’ which resulted in four proven adjudications for possession of a mobile phone, two USB sticks and a charging cable. These were found four days after the hearing in the Applicant’s cell during a routine search. Before the search the Applicant had been asked whether he had anything in his cell which shouldn’t be there and he volunteered one USB stick but not the other items. As a result of this development the panel asked for and received further reports from the prison offender manager (POM) and the community offender manager (COM) and further legal submissions in writing from the Applicant’s legal representative. The POM continued to support release following the development but the COM changed her recommendation and now recommended that the Applicant should not be released. The POM’s report included a detailed explanation from the Applicant as to the circumstances in which he came to have the items in his possession. Current parole review

[7]The case was referred to the Parole Board on 26 April 2024 and is the first post tariff review. The Applicant is now 39 years old.

[8]The oral hearing took place on 20 May 2025 and the panel heard evidence from the Applicant, the POM and the COM. The Relevant Law

[9]The panel correctly sets out in its decision letter dated 21 July 2025 the test for release. Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)

[10]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)).

[11]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 12.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. 13.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. ”

[14]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).

[15]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.

[16]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.

[17]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. Procedural unfairness Procedural unfairness means that there was some procedural impropriety or unfairness resulting in the proceedings being fundamentally flawed and therefore, producing a manifestly unfair, flawed, or unjust result. These issues (which focus on how the decision was made) are entirely separate to the issue of irrationality which focusses on the actual decision. In summary an Applicant seeking to complain of procedural unfairness under rule 28 must satisfy me that either:(a) express procedures laid down by law were not followed in the making of the relevant decision;

(b) they were not given a fair hearing;

(d) they were prevented from putting their case properly;

(e) the panel did not properly record the reasons for any findings or conclusion; and/or

(f) the panel was not impartial. The overriding objective is to ensure that the Applicant’s case was dealt with justly. Error of law

[21]An administrative decision is unlawful under the broad heading of illegality if the panel: a) misinterprets a legal instrument relevant to the function being performed; b) has no legal authority to make the decision; c) fails to fulfil a legal duty; d) exercises discretionary power for an extraneous purpose; e) takes into account irrelevant considerations or fails to take account of relevant considerations; and/or f) improperly delegates decision-making power.

[22]The task in evaluating whether a decision is illegal is essentially one of construing the content and scope of the instrument conferring the duty or power upon the panel. The instrument will normally be the Parole Board Rules, but it may also be an enunciated policy, or some other common law power.

[23]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 (the Respondent)

[24]The Respondent has made no submissions in response to this application. Discussion

[25]It is a reasonable inference from paras 4.6 and 4.7 of the decision that, before the adverse development, the panel was going to direct release. Was the change of mind following the adverse development caused by a legal error or was it irrational? The legal representative makes valid points in the application for reconsideration but I cannot see anything which supports the argument that the panel made an error of law. They have set out the correct release test and there is no material to support the suggestion that they did not apply it. The argument in the application for reconsideration seems to be: the decision is wrong and therefore there must have been a mistake of law. That does not follow and I can find no error of law in the decision.

[26]Was the decision irrational? It may be that other panels would have reached a different decision but that does not mean it is an irrational decision. There was evidence from the COM on which the panel relied to the effect that the facts of the adjudication meant that it was possible to conclude that the Applicant was not currently suitable for release as there were doubts as to whether he would comply with his licence conditions for the reasons set out in the COM’s further report. It was not irrational for the panel to also reach that conclusion. There is material to support the panel’s conclusion and it is not, in my judgement, a conclusion that no properly directed panel could reach.

[27]In the submissions of the Applicant’s legal representative following the adverse development, an application is made for a further oral hearing if the panel are not satisfied as a result of reading the submissions that the decision should be for release. The purpose of this would be to enable the Applicant to ‘defend himself and answer questions’ about the adverse development. The panel does not deal with this application in its decision and in my view they should have done.

[28]Did the failure to hold a further hearing render the proceedings procedurally unfair? This is not one of the arguments advanced by the Applicant but I have considered it in any event. The panel did have the explanation for what happened from the Applicant in the report of the POM and the submissions on his behalf were made on that basis. Accordingly I do not consider that there would have been much else by way of explanation that the Applicant could have provided in an oral hearing. Further the arguments on his behalf as to whether what happened should affect whether the Applicant should be released are fully set out in the further submissions made on the Applicant’s behalf.

[29]Accordingly while I have considered whether there was procedural unfairness I am satisfied that in all the circumstances there wasn’t. It would have been helpful however if the panel had said why they had not acceded to this request. Decision

[30]For the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the decision was irrational or procedurally unfair or contained an error of law and accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused. John Saunders 29 August 2025