Ure, Application for Reconsideration by, [2025] PBRA 203 (24 September 2025) [2025] PBRA 203

PBRA

Ure, Application for Reconsideration by, [2025] PBRA 203 (24 September 2025)

[2025] PBRA 203 · 2025-07-25

[1]This is an application by Ure (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of a panel of the Parole Board dated the 25 July 2025, following an oral hearing on 23 July 2025. The panel's decision was not to direct release.

[2]Rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended by the Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2022) (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:a. An application for reconsideration submitted on the Applicant's behalf by his legal representatives

b. The decision letter

c. The dossier of papers available at the time of the decision letter being written. Request for Reconsideration

[4]The application for reconsideration is dated 15 August 2025.

[5]The grounds for seeking a reconsideration are as follows:(a) Irrationality · The decision does not accurately reflect the evidence presented to the panel · The panel's conclusion that the Applicant has not made sufficient progress on his sentence was irrational in light of the evidence that no further work was needed in custody

(b) Procedural unfairness · The panel's decision to deny the applicant an adjournment following the oral hearing, to enable the outcome of an appeal against the decision not to offer an Approved Premises placement, and/or for further information to be obtained about other suitable accommodation, was procedurally unfair in light of the Parole Board's Adjournment and Deferrals Guidance of July 2020 · As the panel indicated at the conclusion of its decision letter that a future panel would benefit from a psychological assessment it was procedurally unfair not to consider adjourning this review for such an assessment to be undertaken Background

[6]The Applicant has been convicted under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 of causing or inciting a female child under 16 to engage in sexual activity on two occasions, attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child on three occasions, attempting to cause a child to watch a sexual act on two occasions, and arranging or facilitating the commission of a child sex offence. He was aged 42 at the time of committing the offences.

[7]The offences were committed when the Applicant had contact with a decoy police officer as part of a police operation, believing them to be four girls aged 12 and 13. The offences involved grooming of the decoy children through online communication, and included inviting one of the children to engage in masturbation, sending a photograph of his erect penis and a video of him masturbating, leading to a discussion over several days attempting to arrange to meet one of the children to engage in penetrative sex with them.

[8]Whilst the Applicant has previous convictions, none were for sexual offences.

[9]The Applicant was sentenced on 8 March 2022 to an extended determinate sentence totally 8 years, with 4 years 10 months imprisonment and 3 years 2 months extended licence period.

[10]This was the first review of the Applicant's detention, following his parole eligibility date of 3 January 2025. Current parole review

[11]The Applicant's case was referred to the Parole Board in March 2024, and an oral hearing was conducted on 23 July 2025. He was aged 45 at the time of the hearing.

[12]The panel heard evidence at the hearing from the Applicant, his Prison Offender Manager (POM) and his Community Offender Manager (COM). He was legally represented, and written submissions were made on his behalf after the hearing requesting an adjournment for more information to be provided about suitable accommodation. The panel considered the application for an adjournment, but concluded it was neither appropriate nor necessary and therefore there was no further evidence obtained after the hearing. The panel concluded its decision taking into account the evidence in the dossier (which I have seen) and the oral evidence it heard at the hearing, as well as the submissions made on behalf of the Applicant. The Relevant Law

[13]The panel correctly sets out in its decision letter dated 28 July 2025 the test for release. Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)

[14]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)).

[15]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

[16]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.

[17]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. "

[18]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).

[19]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.

[20]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.

[21]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

[25]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.

[26]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. Other

[27]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)

[28]The Respondent offered no representations in reply. Discussion

[29]Turning to the specific grounds relied upon by the Applicant:- Irrationality

[30]The Applicant submits that the panel's conclusion that he had not made sufficient progress in addressing his risk in custody was irrational because witnesses confirmed that there was no further work available to him to complete.

[31]I note in particular the following from the panel's summary of the evidence of the probation officer supervising the Applicant in custody:

" The POM confirmed whilst progress was evident following his completion of the Horizon programme, it remained a work in progress. The POM informed the panel a key area remained underexplored: understanding the underlying reasons behind his decision to commit the index offences. The POM highlighted the lack of clarity around this area continued to be a concern and would benefit from further reflection and support to unpack his underlying motivations. The POM reported he has attempted to explore the motivation for his offending with [the Applicant] but was unable to obtain any meaningful information. The POM stated he was unsure whether this reflected shame or a degree of psychological blocking."

And "He has not yet articulated clear reasons behind his offending beyond referencing his low emotional wellbeing. As a consequence, the POM confirmed the nature and motivation behind his sexual offending remained unexplored and a cause for concern at present. The panel was concerned that the underlying motivation for [the Applicant's] sexual offending has not been fully understood or explored by professionals. This lack of clarity in the panel's view is significant, as it could potentially hinder effective risk assessment and future risk management planning."

[32]The panel also noted evidence from the community-based probation officer which indicated that they also had concerns that the Applicant had not acknowledged and addressed the fundamental risk factors linked to his sexual attraction to pre-pubescent girls, and that "This lack of insight in the panels view presents a barrier to meaningful rehabilitation, as it limits his capacity to engage with strategies that reduce the risk of reoffending and address the psychological or behavioural triggers linked to his past conduct."

[33]In its conclusions, the panel was clear that it accepted the evidence of the two professional witnesses, and it concluded that, based on that evidence and the Applicant's own evidence to the panel, his lack of insight would likely limit "his capacity to engage with strategies that reduce the risk of reoffending and address the psychological or behavioural triggers linked to his past conduct."

[34]I am therefore satisfied that the panel clearly set out in its decision letter its rationale for concluding that the Applicant had not yet sufficiently addressed his risk, by applying the evidence to his risk factors.

[35]The panel had the advantage of an extensive dossier of reports and other material. They had the advantage, too, of seeing and hearing the Applicant as well as the probation officer who has supervised the Applicant in custody and the probation officer who would be tasked with managing his risk if released. The Applicant was also legally represented throughout and his legal representative was able to question witnesses and address the panel on any relevant issues. Where there is a conflict of opinion, it was plainly a matter for the panel to determine which opinion they preferred, provided the reasons given are soundly based on evidence, as well as rational and reasonable or at least not so outrageous in the sense expressed above.

[36]It is important that the panel should explain clearly its reasons for the decisions it makes and that its stated reasons should be sufficient to justify its conclusions, per R (Wells) v Parole Board

2019 EWHC 2710

. I am satisfied in this case that the panel's decision letter clearly set out its rationale for the decisions it reached. The decision letter was clearly expressed, with a comprehensive summary of the evidence heard, together with an application of the evidence to the issues in the Applicant's case, and the areas of concern in relation to risk.

[37]Where a panel arrives at a conclusion, exercising its judgement based on the evidence before it and having regard to the fact that 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.

[38]The Reconsideration Mechanism is not a process whereby the judgement of a panel when assessing risk can be lightly interfered with. Nor is it a mechanism where I should be expected to substitute my view of the facts as 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. Procedural unfairness

[39]The Applicant's legal representatives were permitted to make any closing submissions in writing after the hearing. Included in their submissions was a request to adjourn the review to enable further enquiries to be made about potential accommodation on release. At the date of the hearing, the referral made for an Approved Premises placement for the Applicant had been rejected twice. The Applicant submits that the outcome of a second appeal of the rejection was outstanding, and the panel should have awaited its outcome and/or directed further investigations to consider alternative accommodation options. He submits that the referral to Approved Premises was rejected because his risk was too low and he was therefore unsuitable for a placement.

[40]I note that the panel addressed this issue specifically in its decision letter. It noted the community-based probation officer's evidence that alternative accommodation, in the form of CAS3 accommodation, was available, but that CAS3 accommodation lacked the oversight Approved Premises accommodation would provide, and that an Approved Premises remained the most appropriate environment to reinforce risk management.

[41]The panel appropriately and fairly took into consideration the extent of the additional external controls which would be in place upon the Applicant's release, including Sex Offender Registration requirements and a Sexual Harm Prevention Order. Nonetheless the panel concluded that without an Approved Premises placement and long term accommodation, the risk management plan was " significantly weakened" .

[42]The panel set out clearly that both the prison-based offender supervisor and the community-based offender manager's evidence on how the lack of stable approved accommodation impacted adversely on the safe management of the Applicant's risk in the community.

[43]The panel then went on to address specifically the request for an adjournment to further explore the question of accommodation. It set out in the decision letter the following:

" (a) The COM had already explored AP options and received a refusal on more than one occasion, and the panel saw no value in revisiting this a third time. (b) The panel expressed doubts that a non-AP alternative would adequately manage [the Applicant's] risks. (c) The panel had concerns that [the Applicant's] internal risk factors had not been sufficiently addressed, and that external controls alone would not be reliable safeguards, whatever accommodation may be identified for [the Applicant]."

[44]I note that the Applicant submits that at the time of the hearing there remained an outstanding appeal against the refusal of an Approved Premises placement. However, I have concluded even if the panel was wrong in its understanding of the amount of times the application had been refused, it clearly set out why, even if suitable accommodation was secured, it concluded that risk was not manageable in the community at this time.

[45]It is a well-established ground for judicial review that the tribunal has taken into account information which it is accepted is inaccurate. The grounds for reconsideration mirror those for Judicial Review and therefore it is also a ground for reconsideration. I accept that it is capable of being both irrational and procedurally unfair to take into account inaccurate factual information in making a decision. It is important that decisions are not only fair but are also seen to be made according to a fair procedure. If incorrect information is included in the decision letter, the fairness of the procedure is called into question.

[46]However, it will not invariably follow that if there is an inaccurate fact or facts in the decision letter that an application for reconsideration will be granted. Reconsideration, like Judicial Review, is a discretionary remedy and, if I am satisfied that the incorrect fact did not affect the decision then the application is likely to be refused. Decision

[47]Refusal - For the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the decision was irrational or procedurally unfair and accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused. Victoria Farmer 24 September 2025