Ramsden, Application for Reconsideration by, [2025] PBRA 219 (08 October 2025) [2025] PBRA 219
[1]This is an application by Ramsden (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of an oral hearing panel dated 3 September 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 oral hearing decision, the dossier consisting of 254 pages and the application for reconsideration. Request for Reconsideration[4]The application for reconsideration is dated 24 September 2025 and has been drafted by legal representatives on behalf of the Applicant.[5]The application submits that the public protection test was not applied correctly leading the hearing to be procedurally unfair and that the decision was irrational. Background[6]The Applicant received an extended sentence of 13 years, comprising of 10 years custody and an extended licence of three years on 17 August 2015, for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. His sentence expiry date is April 2028.[7]The Applicant was 21 years old at the time of sentencing and is now 31 years old. Current parole review[8]The Applicant's case was referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State (the Respondent) to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to direct his release.[9]The case proceeded to an oral hearing via video-conference on 19 August 2025. The panel consisted of an independent member. It heard oral evidence from the Applicant together with this Prison Offender Manager and Community Offender Manager. The Applicant was legally represented by an advocate. 10.The panel did not direct the Applicant's release. The Relevant Law 11.The panel correctly sets out in its decision letter dated 3 September 2025 the test for release. 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) 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[20]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.[21]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.[22]The overriding objective is to ensure that the Applicant's case was dealt with justly. The reply on behalf of the Secretary of State (the Respondent)[23]The Respondent has submitted no representations in response to this application. Discussion 24.The application submits that the public protection test was not correctly applied leading to procedural unfairness. No further details are provided. 25.Having carefully considered the decision letter I can see no basis for this ground. The panel carefully considered all the evidence presented including oral evidence from the Applicant. As set out in the decision letter, the panel considered the nature and seriousness of the index offence and the Applicant's antecedent history, it took into account his conduct in custody, the programs and interventions engaged in and completed, it took into account future risk of reoffending and the consequences and took into account likelihood of engaging in and complying with the risk management plan and licence conditions. Nothing on the face of the decision would indicate any procedural unfairness and nothing is identified as such in the application. It is not for me to make the Applicant's argument, and, as an entirely unfounded argument, it must fail. 26.The application submits that the decision was irrational. It is submitted that weight was given to non-compliance rather than the codified test and risk of harm. It is submitted that the Applicant has engaged well in work and has not displayed any violence or aggressive behaviour. The grounds argue that the representatives " do not agree " with the panel's risk assessment submitting that the Applicant has demonstrated he can comply, act pro-socially and has no outstanding risk reduction work to complete. 27.The application in effect amounts to a disagreement with the panel's conclusions without identifying any irrationality in the decision-making process or in the decision. Disagreement is not enough to establish irrationality. The panel took into account, to the Applicant's credit, that there had been no evidence of violence and that he had engaged with programmes. However, the panel also took into account that he had " taken a backwards step with drug use and the use of illicit phones " despite the robust and continuous support of two professionals. The panel noted as a positive that the Applicant was capable of compliance but also noted that was undermined by his decision not to comply with the rules. His behaviour indicated a failure to use the skills and knowledge he acquired from the programmes he attended. Completing a programme is not the same as demonstrating evidence of having internalised the learning from that programme . He was not able to demonstrate the latter to the satisfaction of the panel. 28.The panel considered the evidence carefully and very fairly. Its conclusions were reasoned and balanced and met the codified public protection test. The legal test for irrationality sets a high bar which this case does not come near to meeting. Decision 29.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. Barbara Mensah 08 October 2025