Bennett, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 187 (03 September 2025) [2025] PBRA 187
[1]This is an application by Bennett (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of an oral hearing panel dated 30 July 2025 not to direct 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. This is an eligible case, and the application was made in time.[3]I have considered the application on the papers. These are the oral hearing decision the dossier consisting of 701 pages and the application for reconsideration. Request for Reconsideration[4]The application for reconsideration is dated 13 August 2025. It has been drafted by legal representatives on behalf of the Applicant. It submits that the decision is irrational and unreasonable.[5]This submission is supplemented by written arguments to which reference will be made in the Discussion section below. Background[6]The Applicant received an indeterminate sentence for public protection on 10 July 2009 following guilty pleas to offences of rape and other sexual offences against family members. The tariff was set at 7 years less time spent on remand and expired on 10 November 2015.[7]The Applicant was aged 64 at the time of sentence and is now 80 years old. Current parole review[8]The Applicant’s case was referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State (the Respondent) in December 2023 to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to direct his release. If the Board did not consider it appropriate to direct release, it was invited to advise the Secretary of State whether the Applicant should be transferred to open conditions.[9]The case proceeded to an oral hearing via videoconference on 23 July 2025. The panel consisted of two independent members and a psychologist member. It heard oral evidence from the Applicant, together with his Prison Offender Manager (POM), Community Offender Manager (COM) and a Prison Psychologist. The Applicant was legally represented throughout the hearing. The Respondent was not represented by an advocate.[10]The Applicant has been in open conditions since 2021. The panel did not direct the Applicant’s release. The Relevant Law[11]The panel correctly sets out in its decision letter dated 30 July 2025 the test for release and the issues to be addressed in making a recommendation to the Secretary of State for a progressive move to open conditions. Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)[12]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)).[13]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 14.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. 15.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. ” 16.In R(on the application of Wells) -v- Parole Board 2019 EWHC 2710 (Admin) 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). 17.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. 18.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. 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 Secretary of State 19.The Respondent has submitted no representations in response to this application. Discussion 20.The grounds are a re-statement of the Applicant’s position and an attempt to re-argue again matters that were considered by the panel. In his application, the Applicant submits that too much weight has been placed on his index offences, that he has been open and honest in his evidence and is ashamed of his actions. The application states that the Applicant has an understanding of the harm he caused, as well as an understanding of why he committed the offences. It is said he takes responsibility for his actions. He submits that he would not rely solely on his wife but would report to professionals. He submits that his wife is a protective factor and that sexual recidivism reduces with age. With regard to the mobile discos he submits that there was always someone with him and no complaints have been raised against him. With regard to accommodation he states that his reliance on a mobility scooter and his reliance with his wife on public transport and the requirement on him to sign in at particular times at the AP have reduced his opportunity to make more progress on seeking accommodation. He is aware of the exclusion area and suggests other areas to which he could move. 21.The Applicant submits that on licence he would be assessed for Building Choices and be subject to regular polygraph testing as well as subject to an indeterminate SOPO. The application submits that the licence conditions are robust, that there is no more than a minimal risk which is not imminent, that the professionals support release, there has been no further offending and that Applicant meets the test for release. 22.The panel in a clear and detailed decision has given reasons for all these issues raised in the application. Those reasons are set out in section 4 of the decision and it is unnecessary for me to set them out again in this decision. The Applicant’s disagreement with the panel is not enough to establish irrationality, nor does the application identify any part of the decision which can be described as such. An argument that the professionals all support release misunderstands the panel’s purpose which is not simply to agree with the professionals. The panel must make up its own mind based on the totality of the evidence presented, including that from the Applicant. 23.Nothing in the grounds identifies any irrationality or unreasonableness. The panel set out its reasons for disagreeing with professionals. There was plainly material before the panel justifying its conclusions. The panel’s reasons and reasoning in refusing release were logical, rational, clear and fair and far short of being in any way irrational or unreasonable. The Applicant’s disappointment and disagreement with the decision do not satisfy the test set out above. Decision 24.For the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the decision was irrational and accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused. Barbara Mensah 3 September 2025