Bird, Application for Reconsideration by, [2025] PBRA 213 (13 October 2025) [2025] PBRA 213
PBRA
Bird, Application for Reconsideration by, [2025] PBRA 213 (13 October 2025)
[2025] PBRA 213 · 2025-07-01
[1]This is an application by Bird (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision on the papers dated 1 July 2025 not to direct his 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 paper decision, the dossier consisting of 173 pages and the application for reconsideration. Request for Reconsideration[4]The application for reconsideration is dated 1 September 2025. It has been drafted by representatives on behalf of the Applicant. It submits that the decision was procedurally unfair in that it lacked sufficient reasoning and that the principles governing the need for an oral hearing were not properly considered.[5]The submission is supplemented by written arguments to which reference will be made in the Discussion section below. Background[6]The Applicant received an extended sentence of 9 years 6 months custody with an extended period of 2 years licence. His sentence was in respect of offences of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, violent disorder and possession of an offensive weapon. His sentence expiry date is in January 2031.[7]The Applicant was 20 years old at the time of sentencing and is now 25 years old. Current parole review[8]The Applicant's case was referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State (the Respondent) in February 2025 to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to direct his release.[9]The case proceeded to was considered on the papers. The Relevant Law[10]The panel correctly sets out in its decision letter dated 1 July 2025 the test for release. Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)[11]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)).[12]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)). 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 16.The Respondent has submitted no representations in response to this application. Discussion 17.The application seeks reconsideration on the basis that the case should not have been determined on the papers but required an oral hearing and that the decision lacked reasoning and failed to properly consider the test for directing an oral hearing. The application sets out the test and principles set out in case law for directing an oral hearing. The application submits that the decision letter did not apply the principles and did not set out the reasons in the decision letter. The application submits that the Applicant was not " fully aware " that his parole process had commenced and as a result instructed representatives late in the process. 18.There is no evidence that the panel was not aware of the principles in Osborn Booth & Reily [2013] UKSC 61 , which the application sets out in extensive detail. The panel has correctly and properly applied the principles from the case. 19.In the cases of Osborn, Booth & Reily v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61 , the Supreme Court comprehensively reviewed the basis on which the Parole Board should consider applications for an oral hearing. Their conclusions are set out at paragraph 2 of the judgment. The Supreme Court did not decide that there should always be an oral hearing but said there should be if fairness to the prisoner requires one. The Supreme Court indicated that an oral hearing is likely to be necessary where the Board is in any doubt whether to direct one; they should be ordered where there is a dispute on the facts; where the panel needs to see and hear from the prisoner in order to properly assess risk and where it is necessary in order to allow the prisoner to properly put his case. When deciding whether to direct an oral hearing the Board should take into account the prisoner's legitimate interest in being able to participate in a decision with important implications for him. It is not necessary that there should be a realistic prospect of progression for an oral hearing to be directed. 20.The panel considered all the evidence presented in the dossier. The Prison Offender Manager and Community Offender Manager had interviewed the Applicant and his answers and views were set out in their reports. There was a psychological risk assessment which records the Applicant's responses. All those matters were taken into account by the panel. The Applicant does not suggest any error in the facts recorded, the panel did not need to see or hear from the Applicant to properly assess risk. The Applicant does not suggest that there are any further matters, which the panel need to take into account, which were not covered in any of the interviews he had with the professionals. Fairness did not require an oral hearing. 21.There was no application by the Applicant or on his behalf for an adjournment. An application for an oral hearing dated 29 July was refused by a Duty Member. There was no flaw in the panel's decision and no absence of reasons. The panel was satisfied that it " had all the information available to enable it to make a fair and balanced assessment of risk ". The Applicant's submissions that the decision is procedurally defective and flawed are simply an attempt to secure an oral hearing. 22.The panel's conclusions were soundly based and clearly reasoned. There was no procedural unfairness in its consideration of the case on the papers. All the matters considered by the professionals and the Applicant's responses were taken into consideration by the panel. The panel did not need to see and hear from the Applicant to assess risk, his responses to his professional team having been incorporated in their reports. There is no suggestion that they did not accurately and fully report the Applicant's position. The Applicant does not indicate what further or different matters he would have raised had he attended. 23.Once the representatives were instructed (and they do not give a date) it was always open to them to seek an adjournment but they do not appear to have done so. There was no procedural unfairness in the panel's decision to consider the case on the papers. Decision 24.For the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the decision was procedurally unfair and accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused. Barbara Mensah 13 October 2025