Grimwood, Application for Reconsideration by, [2025] PBRA 200 (17 September 2025) [2025] PBRA 200
PBRA
Grimwood, Application for Reconsideration by, [2025] PBRA 200 (17 September 2025)
[2025] PBRA 200 · 2025-08-26
[1]This is an application by Grimwood (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of an oral hearing dated 14 August 2025 not to direct release, but to recommend a transfer to open conditions.[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 Letter (DL) · Reconsideration Representations submitted 26 August 2025 · The dossier, numbered to p778, the last document being the DL Request for Reconsideration[4]The grounds for seeking reconsideration begin by asserting that " Oral hearing was irrational and procedurally unfair and that the correct process was not followed ." The representations do not suggest that any of the matters set out under this heading (which are essentially allegations of a degree of discourtesy, such as forgetting people's names, and which I have not investigated), had any effect on the fairness of the hearing or the outcome. Nor, in my judgement, could they. I will say no more about them.[5]The remaining grounds are set out under the heading " Decision is irrational and makes no sense based on the evidence of risk that was considered and that no other panel could come to the same conclusion." The matters of complaint, as best I can distil them, seem to be these:[6]The panel's conclusions contradict the Codified Public Protection test because:(1) The panel concluded that " although serious offending could occur at any time it is unlikely to be imminent ."(2) The Applicant's evidence was strong and insightful to support that he can indeed be compliant in the community.(3) The only way to demonstrate whether the Applicant can be compliant in the community is for him to be tested in psychologically informed approved premises (a PIPE AP).(4) There is no evidence to suggest that the Applicant would not engage with the Risk Management Plan (RMP).(5) The Applicant meets the test for release because the risk of violent offending is assessed as medium, risk of serious harm if released as not imminent, and there is no core work outstanding. The representations further comment on the Secretary of State's (the Respondent's) rejection of a previous panel's recommendation for a move to open conditions and on the Applicant being moved to a prison which was unsafe because of the level of radon gas there. It is suggested that this exacerbated his general health and well-being which triggered incidents of non-compliance at his next prison. Further matters of complaint are advanced. The representations point out that the psychologist witnesses said that open conditions do not suit all prisoners; that the Prison Offender Manager (POM) supported release and a placement in a PIPE AP; and that the Applicant gave thoughtful evidence that he did not feel that open conditions would benefit him. The representations refer to the Applicant's various health conditions. It is not suggested that the panel was not aware of these. It is suggested that the panel did not sufficiently question the psychologist instructed on behalf of the Applicant. The Applicant is being realistic about potential release. "There have been minimal instances of noncompliance which [the Applicant] does not minimise." There were no concerns about the Applicant being open and honest. "[The Applicant] should not be denied release for reasons outside his control." There is a duty imposed by s6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to give weight to the implications of the Applicant's rights under the European Convention of Human Rights, Article 5, which requires the panel to consider the necessity of continued detention.[7]Only the numbered grounds above seem even potentially capable of amounting to matters relevant to a reconsideration decision. The legal considerations are set out below. In short, the weight to be attached to various aspects of the evidence is a matter for the judgement of the panel. Unless it is suggested that the panel did not take account of relevant matters, or did take into account irrelevant matters, repetition of points of argument is of no assistance. Background[8]The Applicant was 21 years old in 1987 when he was found Guilty of murder. He and another man robbed a 65-year-old homeless woman, stamped on her head an abdomen and swung her against a heavy industrial dustbin, causing the injuries from which she died. The Applicant's previous convictions (starting when he was 14) showed a pattern of acquisitive offending potentially linked to negative associations. He is now 59. The tariff for his life sentence expired in 2002. Current parole review[9]The Secretary of State's referral letter was prepared in October 2023. This is the seventh review. The Secretary of State requested the Parole Board to consider a direction for release or, in the alternative, a recommendation for a transfer to open conditions. The Applicant sought release.[10]The oral hearing took place on 12 August 2025. The panel consisted of three independent members of the Parole Board. The witnesses were two psychologists, the Prison Offender Manager (POM) and the Community Offender Manager (COM). The Applicant gave evidence. He was represented throughout, and his representative had the opportunity to ask questions of all the witnesses, including, it should be noted, the Applicant and the psychologist instructed on his behalf. The Relevant Law[11]The panel correctly sets out in its decision letter 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)). This is an eligible sentence and an eligible decision. 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) 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).[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.[19]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;(c) they were not properly informed of the case against them;(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. The reply on behalf of the Secretary of State[23]The Respondent has chosen not to respond to this application. Discussion[24]As I have indicated above, many of the matters raised in the application, including all the assertions alleged to relate to procedural unfairness, are irrelevant to the reconsideration process.[25]As to (1), the panel accepted that serious offending could take place at any time but is unlikely to be imminent. However, his behaviour in custody raised concerns that such behaviour in the community could quickly escalate to serious non-compliance with licence conditions or supervision, or indeed to further offending which could escalate to a risk of serious harm. This was a conclusion to which the panel was entitled to come on the evidence. It is a judgement relevant to risk.[26]As to (2), it was for the panel to assess the Applicant's evidence, and to decide how far it gave assurance that he passed the test for release.[27]As to (3), if this is a good argument it is not easy to see how it can ever be justified for the Parole Board not to direct release. It is not a good argument. The panel was obliged to assess the Applicant's risk of serious harm in the community before directing his release, not just hope he would not re-offend while he was being tested in the community.[28]As to (4), nor is there any evidence that he would comply. The panel had to make an assessment on the basis of the evidence, and the conclusion it came to about possible lack of compliance was open to it.[29]As to (5), the task of the panel was to assess risk on a holistic basis: decisions as to release are not tick-box exercises, relying on the assessments of others; they involve judgements as to risk. The panel came to such judgements on the basis of the evidence it heard. Whether there is core risk-reduction work to be done is irrelevant. The question is what the risk is and whether it can be managed in the community.[30]I should mention the ECHR argument. If there were anything in this, it would need to be properly and specifically pleaded, presumably as an incorrect application of the law. As it stands, the argument, such as it is, is readily met by pointing out that the Parole Board's remit, to consider the necessity for continuing detention in the context of the protection of the public from serious harm, is precisely compliant with the ECHR. Decision[31]For the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the decision was irrational, nor was it procedurally unfair, and accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused. HH Patrick Thomas KC 17 September 2025