Mee, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 222 (16 October 2025) [2025] PBRA 222

PBRA

Mee, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 222 (16 October 2025)

[2025] PBRA 222 · 2019-04-16

[1]This is an application by Mee ('the Applicant') for reconsideration of a decision of a panel of the Parole Board ('the Board').

[2]The Applicant is serving an extended determinate sentence ('EDS') which was imposed on 16 April 2019 for an offence of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (the 'index offence'). The circumstances of that offence will be discussed below.

[3]The Applicant's sentence comprises a custodial term of 10 years and an extended licence period of 3 years. He became eligible for early release on licence on 13 February 2025. In advance of that date his case was referred to the Board by the Secretary of State for Justice ('the Respondent') to review his case and decide whether to direct his release once he became eligible for it.

[4]If the Applicant is not released on this review his case will be referred again annually to the Board. If he has not been released early by the Board he will be automatically released on licence in June 2028. His sentence will not expire until June 2031.

[5]On 24 August 2025, after an oral hearing, a panel of the Board decided against his early release on licence. His legal representative has made an application on his behalf for reconsideration of the panel's decision. The request for reconsideration

[6]Rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended by the Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2024) provides that applications for reconsideration of panel decisions may be made, either by the prisoner or by the Secretary of State for Justice, in eligible cases.

[7]Rule 28(2) specifies the types of case in which reconsideration applications may be made. They include cases, like the Applicant's, where the prisoner is serving an EDS.

[8]A reconsideration application may be made on one or more of the following grounds:(a) that the panel's decision contained an error of law and/or

(b) that it was irrational and/or

[9]In this case the application was made on the grounds of irrationality and procedural unfairness. It was made within the time limit for such applications and was therefore eligible for reconsideration.

[10]I am one of the members of the Board who are authorised (as 'Reconsideration Assessment Panels') to make decisions on reconsideration applications, and this case has been allocated to me.

[11]The documents which have been provided to me and which I have considered for the purposes of this application are:(a) the dossier of papers provided by the Respondent for the Board's review of the Applicant's case (the dossier now runs to page 347 and includes a copy of the panel's decision);

(b) the legal representative's submissions in support of this application; and

(c) an e-mail from the Public Protection Casework Section of the Ministry of Justice ("PPCS") stating that the Respondent does not wish to make any representations in response to the application.

[12]In addition to reading these documents I have listened to the whole of the recording of the hearing. Background and history of the case

[13]The Applicant is now aged 27. He comes from a pro-social family. He had some problems at school and at the age of 15 he started to drink alcohol and use cannabis. He has reported being bullied. When he went to college he started to associate with anti-social peers and sometimes used class A drugs.

[14]He also accumulated a few criminal convictions. The first was for spitting at a police officer who was trying to arrest one of his friends. The second was for being drunk in a nightclub and using racist and abusive language to a police officer. The third was for burgling (with a friend) the home of a drug dealer: they left without stealing anything. The Applicant received non-custodial sentences for these offences.

[15]The index offence occurred in June 2018. The Applicant was aged 20 at the time. His victim was of a similar age. There had been bad blood between them and there had been two previous violent incidents.

[16]The first of those had occurred about two years before the index offence. The Applicant decided to hit the victim on the legs with a bat. However, the victim was able to get the bat from him and hit him on the head with it. The Applicant did not report the matter to the police.

[17]The second incident occurred nearer to the index offence. On that occasion the victim hit the Applicant on the arm with a hockey stick, breaking a bone in his elbow. Again, he did not report the matter to the police.

[18]On the day before the index offence the Applicant had been taking class A drugs. He has said that he did not sleep that night. He had been ruminating about the victim.

[19]On the next day he went to a friend's house to purchase cannabis. Unexpectedly the victim was there. There was an altercation between the two of them and the Applicant went away but returned with a knife with which he stabbed the victim 11 times to the face, chest and abdomen, causing very serious injuries. He later said: "I got revenge, and I finally got him".

[20]He was charged with attempted murder but when the case came to court, he pleaded guilty to wounding with intent to cause grievous harm and that plea was accepted by the prosecution so there was no trial.

[21]In the early stages of his sentence the Applicant's behaviour left something to be desired and he reported that he was bullied by other prisoners. Hovever his behaviour improved and he engaged positively in work to address his risk to the public. He was not considered to meet the criteria for undertaking any accredited programmes, and it was not suggested that an ' override' of those criteria was appropriate.

[22]He frankly admitted using cannabis in times of stress. The prison staff were aware of that but as it did not have any adverse effect on his behaviour they do not seem to have been particularly concerned about it.

[23]He began to attend a Bible study course in May 2024 and then attended an Alpha course which is an introduction to the basics of Christianity. This course was said by the chaplain to have had a profound effect on him and he made a commitment of faith. The chaplain reported:

'Since then he has been on a journey of consistently engaging with chaplaincy and the courses we offer. I have seen him grow in his faith and grow in maturity.'

[24]It was anticipated that the Applicant would be transferred to an open prison, but that did not happen because of two incidents for which he was adjudicated (pleading guilty on both occasions).

[25]The first incident occurred on 1 February 2025. It was recorded by one of the officers in the adjudication report as follows: Whilst carrying out officer duties... myself and [officer X] was on the [landing] near the [cell occupied by the Applicant]. as I walked towards [the cell] [the Applicant] was acting very suspicious in his cell and when I questioned him regarding his behaviour I could see [the Applicant] trying to conceal something in the back of his trousers. I asked [the Applicant] to step to the back of his cell and that myself and [Officer X] was going to conduct a full search on him due to the suspicious activity of what he was doing. As the search was being carried out [the Applicant] was trying to conceal something from myself and [Officer X]. I told [the Applicant] to stand up and place his arms up. [The Applicant] then tried to push his way past myself and [Officer X] to throw what he was trying to conceal onto the landing. Due to his non-compliance he was restrained. Whilst we was trying to place cuffs on [the Applicant] he was kicking out with his legs and kicked me in the genitals. Once placed in cuffs he was taken to the [segregation unit].

[26]The package which the Applicant was trying to conceal was a quantity of cannabis. The Applicant said that he was carrying the package for another prisoner and he was afraid that there would be repercussions from the other prisoner if the cannabis was seized by prison staff. He has admitted kicking out, as staff were trying to restrain him, but he says that he did not deliberately kick the staff member. It will be necessary to return to this topic below.

[27]The second incident occurred on 18 March 2025 when the Applicant was found to be in possession of a cannabis grinder.

[28]In June 2025, the Applicant was baptised and that also seems to have had a profound effect on him. He has said that he did not use cannabis after that and there is no evidence to the contrary.

[29]The Applicant's oral hearing took place on 1 August 2025. It was conducted by video link. The panel which conducted the hearing comprised three independent members of the Board. The Applicant was legally represented. The panel had read the dossier which then ran to page 332. There was no victim personal statement.

[30]Oral evidence was given (in the following order) by(a) the prison offender manager ('POM')

(b) the Applicant himself

(d) the community offender manager ('COM'). The Applicant's legal representative made her closing representations orally at the end of the hearing.

[31]All three professional witnesses supported the Applicant's release on licence, but the panel did not agree. Their reasons will be discussed below. The Relevant Law The test for release on licence

[32]Under the Codified Public Protection test the panel could only direct the Applicant's release on licence if they were satisfied that his continued confinement in prison was no longer necessary for the protection of the public, and they could only be so satisfied if they considered that (if the prisoner were to be no longer confined in prison) there would be no more than a minimal risk of his committing a further offence so serious that it might result in serious harm to somebody else. The rules relating to reconsideration of decisions

[33]Under Rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended in 2024) a decision is eligible for reconsideration if (but only if) it is a decision that the prisoner is or is not suitable for release on licence. A decision not to recommend a move to an open prison is not eligible for reconsideration.

[34]The grounds on which an application may be made are as set out above (error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness). As noted above the application in this case is made on the grounds of irrationality and procedural unfairness.

[35]A decision that a prisoner is or is not suitable for release on licence is eligible for reconsideration whether it is made by:(i) A paper panel (Rule 19(1)(a) or (b)) or

(ii) An oral hearing panel after an oral hearing, as in this case (Rule 25(1)) or

(iii) An oral hearing panel which makes the decision on the papers (Rule 21(7)).

[36]As noted above the application in this case was made by the Applicant's legal representative on his behalf. The arguments deployed by the legal representative in support of the application will be discussed below. The definition of irrationality

[37]The power of the courts to interfere with a decision of a competent public authority on the ground of irrationality was defined in Associated Provincial Houses Ltd -v- Wednesbury Corporation 1948 1 KB 223 by Lord Greene as follows:

"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 Parole Board is a public authority for that purpose, and the Wednesbury test therefore applies to applications to the High Court for judicial review of a panel's decision. It also applies to applications to Reconsideration Panels of the Board for reconsideration of a panel's decision on the ground of irrationality.

[38]In R (DSD and others) -v- the Parole Board

2018 EWHC 694

(Admin) ('the Worboys case') a Divisional Court applied this test to Parole Board decisions in these words:

" 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 ."

The same test of course applies to " no release" decisions.

[39]In R (on the application of Wells) -v- Parole Board

2019 EWHC 2710

(Admin) Mr Justice Saini set out what he described as a more nuanced approach in modern public law. This approach is " 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 formulation of the 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) .

[40]As was made clear by Mr Justice Saini, this is not a different test from the Wednesbury test. The interpretation of (and application of) the Wednesbury test in parole hearings (as explained in the Wednesbury and DSD cases) was of course binding on Mr Justice Saini. It is similarly binding on Reconsideration Panels.

[41]It follows from these principles that in considering an application for reconsideration a Reconsideration Panel cannot substitute its own view of the evidence for that of the panel who heard the witnesses and were able to assess their reliability. The Reconsideration Panel will only direct reconsideration on the ground of irrationality if the Wednesbury test is satisfied.

[42]A panel of the Board is not bound by the recommendations of professional witnesses, even if they are unanimous: its task is to make its own assessment of the prisoner's risk of serious harm to the public and its manageability on licence. It is however well established that, if the panel rejects the unanimous recommendations of the professionals, it must provide reasons for doing so and those reasons must stand up to close examination, otherwise its decision may be regarded as irrational. Equally if the panel provides no reasons at all, its decision may be found to be irrational because the Reconsideration Member (or the High Court if the case is referred to it for a judicial review) will have no means of knowing what the panel's reasons were and whether they would have stood up to close examination. The definition of procedural unfairness

[43]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.

[44]Examples of procedural unfairness which may be a ground for quashing a panel's decision on this ground are where: a) express procedures laid down by law were not followed in the making of the relevant decision; or b) the party was not given a fair hearing; c) the party was not properly informed of the case against them; d) the party was 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.

[45]These are not the only possible grounds for a finding of procedural unfairness but they are the ones most commonly alleged. The overriding objective is to ensure that the Applicant's case was dealt with justly. The request for reconsideration

[46]The legal representative submitted three grounds in support of this application:(a) that it was procedurally unfair for the Panel Chair to intervene at one point in the evidence to ask the Applicant whether he had used cannabis on the morning of the hearing;

(b) that it was irrational for the panel to attach disproportionate weight to the adjudication for kicking an officer; and

(c) that the panel's treatment of that matter was procedurally unfair. These grounds will be discussed below. The reply on behalf of the Respondent

[47]As noted above the Respondent has offered no representations in respect of this application. Discussion Ground 1: the panel chair's intervention

[48]I have been greatly assisted by listening to the recording of this episode.

[49]This intervention occurred after the first panel member had finished questioning the POM. The panel chair and another panel member were concerned by the Applicant's appearance and demeanour. Since the Applicant had previously, in his sentence, used cannabis to deal with stressful situations, it occurred to them (quite reasonably) that he might have used it on the morning of the hearing and that might explain his unusual demeanour.

[50]The panel chair therefore very politely (and saying that he had not done this before) asked the Applicant whether he had used cannabis that morning. The panel chair explained:

'I just wanted to check you hadn't done something silly'

. The Applicant said no he hadn't. The panel chair then said:

'I've been able to be reassured that you haven't taken anything'

. The legal representative said:

'I'd just like to emphasise that he's quite nervous.'

The panel chair said that that was entirely understandable and he was completely reassured.

[51]There was then a short break in which the Applicant was able to have a private discussion with his legal representative. When the hearing resumed there was no further questioning of the POM, and the next panel member began his questioning of the Applicant. He began by asking him how he was feeling, and the Applicant said 'OK' .

[52]The Applicant answered all the questions after that very clearly. I was impressed by the panel's exceptionally courteous questioning throughout the hearing and by the Applicant's answers to the questions (including the difficult ones). The psychologist was also impressed. She said in the course of her evidence:

'I was really pleased to see him talking about the index offence and the lead-up to it.'

[53]At the end of the hearing the panel chair asked the Applicant whether he felt he had had a fair hearing and he said ' Yes, absolutely'. The panel chair commented:

' You look much more alive and alert than you did at the start.'

This was no doubt due to the fact that the panel had been able to put him at his ease and to enable him to give his 'best evidence'.

[54]It was apparent from the recording that the Applicant was not in any way disadvantaged by the panel chair's intervention. Indeed, it may actually have helped him to relax and give his own evidence with more confidence.

[55]The panel chair did nothing wrong in asking the Applicant whether he had taken cannabis that morning. He had a reasonable suspicion, based on the Applicant's appearance and demeanour, that that might have been the case and I think it was very sensible to get it out in the open rather than harbour the suspicion. Furthermore if it had transpired that the Applicant was under the influence of a drug, it would probably have been necessary to adjourn the hearing. Having made it very clear that he was reassured that the Applicant had not taken cannabis, the panel chair made no further mention of it.

[56]I cannot therefore uphold this ground. Ground 2: Disproportionate weight attached to the 'kicking' incident

[57]This specific argument needs to be examined in the context of a wider issue, namely whether the panel's reasons for rejecting the recommendations of the professional witnesses stood up to close examination. I therefore need at this point to set out the panel's reasons. They are to be found in the following sections of the panel's decision. Risk assessment The COM and other professionals identified that the biggest risk factors were linked to his misuse of substances, his thinking skills and revengeful thinking and attitudes, the influence of negative peers and a lack of structure in his life that took him away from the pro-social influences that his family undoubtedly were and remain so. The most recent OASys based on various static risk factors such as age at first conviction, the number of convictions and current age shows [the Applicant's] OGRS 3 scores place him in the low band of offenders in terms of likelihood of reconviction. His OGP scores place him within the low band of offenders for proven general non-violent offending. His OVP scores place him within the low band of offenders for proven violent offending. [The Applicant's] risk of serious recidivism (RSR) scores places him in the low category. If [the Applicant] was to commit an act of violence the likelihood of it being an act of serious harm is assessed as being medium to the public and low to all other categories including a known adult and staff. The COM assessed the risk of serious harm to the public as medium and considered this to be the result of the specific set of circumstances that prevailed at the time of the index offence. She did not see risk of serious harm as being imminent. [The psychologist] assessed risk of serious harm as being not imminent too and at the level of medium to the public. She asserted that he had not had the lifestyle of complexity linked to trauma and social deprivation that might have led her to conclude that it was high to the public. She also concluded that he could respond to conflict in non-violent ways. The professionals indicated that there were protective factors in [the Applicant's] case and these included the following which the panel were prepared to adopt: violence in his past was highly contextual, he was very immature with an adolescent brain that was not yet fully formed, no longer around anti-social adults, has motivation to succeed and change and is no longer preoccupied with how others see him. He also has a pro-social family that remains and is supportive of him. The panel noted these assessments but struggled about the assessed RoSH [risk of serious harm] to the public as being only medium. This assessment is linked to if an act of harm is to be committed what are the chances that it will be serious, and the panel could find little evidence to suggest that at this stage a reduction to a medium risk to the public rather than high would not be a more accurate assessment. The lack of pervasiveness of violence in the view of the panel is clouding the view that when he wanted to be violent [the Applicant] was very capable of committing an act of serious harm to a member of the public and he did so against a background that has been described as not typical of such a violent offender. In the panel's view risk of serious harm to the public should be assessed at this stage as high given the lack of clearly understood contributory features.' Conclusion The panel weighed the evidence carefully that it had read in the dossier and had heard in the Oral Hearing. The panel was very mindful of the closing legal Submissions from [the legal representative] in support of his application for release and gave this detailed attention. The panel noted her submission that he was past his PED [Parole Eligibility Date] (February 2025) and that the professional support was all for release. When applying itself to the Codified Public Protection test the panel noted [the legal representative's] submission that [the Applicant] was open in his evidence and showed insight into his risk factors, that he had achieved demonstrable change and that he had matured since being in custody. She also submitted that his violence was not pervasive and that there had been no other allegations of violence even when he had been smoking cannabis in custody persistently. There were plans to manage the risk. She opined in terms of prison behaviour that the adjudication for assault on an officer was not intentional and not offence parallelling and as a function it was different and out of character in the rest of his custodial behaviour. It was on this latter point that the panel took divergence with [the legal representative's] submissions. The panel went back to the Codified public protection test and noted the extreme seriousness of the index violence. [The Applicant] stabbed his victim multiple times causing. two gashes to the left-hand side of his face, which will require reconstructive surgery. Eight penetrating wounds consistent with knife wounds. A very deep wound to right shoulder approximately 4" long. A very deep wound to abdomen approximately 1" - no major organs hit. A wound to the left chest and wound to the left back. One of those has hit the lung and four other penetrating wounds to arms/torso/hands linked to acts of self-protection from the victim. [The victim] nearly died and [the Applicant] was initially charged with attempted murder. This all committed as an act of revenge against a man he believed to have bullied him. It was also such a serious violent act that had little to predict it in terms of past behaviour or trauma that would have influenced the use of such extreme violence to solve a problem. The panel is concerned that the adjudication for an incident of assault against an officer is more offence paralleling than the professionals give credit. His behaviour in custody has been good and he had at one point reached an assessment that he could progress to open prison conditions. Yet when faced with a situation in which he is caught red handed with cannabis that may have been his or a product that he was holding for others, his solution to the problem was that he would lash out at an officer, kicking and punching them in the genitals in a manner to try and get rid of the cannabis package. He was in the view of the panel reckless as to the level of harm that he might have caused - and all this over some cannabis that he knew that the prison knew that he smoked and perhaps may not play to an aspect of his risk of serious harm. The panel also takes issue that cannabis is a not a risk factor in that it is linked to serious harm. The panel prefers the view that cannabis use for [the Applicant] is a passport into a more dysregulated offending lifestyle that in the past has resulted in serious harm and the panel has heard no evidence to suggest that it would not in the future. There is in the view of the panel, despite [the Applicant's] increased maturity, something fundamentally ill-conceived about his approach to his own risk management and future in the community of no violence that just months before an Oral hearing of the Board - his first application - that he should get two adjudications for violence to staff and for the use of cannabis. The panel is satisfied that [the Applicant] has made progress, has matured and is capable of being pro-social but it remains less satisfied that the nature of his use of violence is as well understood as it needs to be. The panel acknowledges [the psychologist's] assessments and the lack of pervasiveness of violence and chronic precipitating factors, but the panel found itself struggling to feel so satisfied that the nature of his behaviour is as well understood as is needed to be managed at this point in the potential move into the community. In the view of the panel extreme, revengeful violence came out of the blue and it is not so satisfied that all risks have been addressed and mitigated. The decision to randomly assault an officer after many years in custody when he could just as easily have stuck his hands in the air and said "it's a fair cop" and probably have had no long term ramifications for his progress, does not sit easily with the panel having to assess his risk of an act of serious harm and if he meets the codified test. It is too offence paralleling in the view of the panel. The panel concludes that his risk of serious harm is not as clearly understood as needs be; that he has had limited opportunities to address any offence related work and the panel remains unsure that the COM has as yet had the opportunity to fully understand the risk that she is expected to manage in the community given the short term nature of their contact (she has been the COM since only May 2025) and has had limited contact. The panel also had some reservations about the return to live at home. Whilst the panel fully accepts that the parents and siblings are protective, they note that he was living at home at the time of the index offence. He has undoubtedly matured and grown up in years and family dynamics have changed. However, [the Applicant] has shown himself to be unpredictable in his recent assaultive prison behaviour and the panel is not sure that enough testing has been given to the release to his parent's address. This may well be suitable, but the panel would have preferred some forms of ROTL [Release on Temporary Licence] and testing to see this more satisfactorily. In conclusion [the Applicant] has made great strides and progress in understanding his risks and he is without doubt a changed person from the young man who committed the index offence. However, the panel assesses that in their view there is still not enough surety to comfortably assess that he meets the codified public protection test. This was the most serious of assaults with a dangerous weapon perhaps bought for the intended purpose and committed by a young man whose revengeful actions were not easily predictable. The panel is of the view that further testing and understanding of how he responds in other situations are required before he can be said to meet the test for release. This perhaps includes ROTL to his parents' address, the intended licence address. Some further work to address his thinking skills needs to be applied in custody to be reassured that he does not choose violence in situations when he is challenged. Consequently, the panel assesses he does not meet the test and does not direct release. Open conditions is not a matter for the Board but clearly this gives him an opportunity to achieve the further testing that might be required before being fully released on licence at a future application before the Board, of which he has others.'

[58]The panel clearly gave very careful consideration to this case and I agree with much of what they say in their decision letter, but I am concerned that there are a number of difficulties with their reasons.

[59]In that connection, I should start by referring to the arguments deployed by the legal representative in submitting that the panel attached too much weight to the assault on a prison officer.

[60]The legal representative summarises her submission as follows: 'It is argued that the panel's decision was irrational in that it placed significant and undue reliance on the adjudication for assault on a prison officer, elevating it to determinative significance without properly considering the long and otherwise violence-free custodial history or [the Applicant's] evidence along with the views of professionals'.

[61]She then points out an inaccuracy in the panel's recital of the evidence. The panel referred to the Applicant punching the officer as well as kicking him. She states that there was no evidence (written or oral) of punching, and I have not seen any. Significantly there was no mention of punching in the report filed by the custodial manager who had to decide what action, if any, to take against the Applicant as a result of the assault. His report states as follows: 1 February 2025 ...staff had to restrain [the Applicant] as he refused to hand over a parcel on his person, in restraint assaulted staff and relocated to [the segregation unit]. POM - [the Applicant] states the 'assault' was unintentional. A CSIP was opened - 7 February the CSIP was signed off by the Custodial Manager. Reason for decision This is a one-off incident with [the Applicant] assaulting staff and it appears the assault happened as he was kicking his legs. He didn't mean to assault the officer, but he didn't want to give the parcel over. [His] behaviour will be monitored and if it happens again, he will be on a full CSIP. Comments on next steps [The Applicant] is back on the wing and hasn't been any issues. The staff are happy to have him back on the wing. Decision outcome No further action.

[62]I have given careful attention to the written and oral evidence of the professional witnesses on the topic of the assault. I found the evidence of the psychologist to be particularly persuasive. She did not accept the suggestion that the assault on the prison officer was ' offence paralleling' . She explained that, in order to see whether behaviour is accurately described as offence paralleling, it is necessary to identify the function of the behaviour. She pointed out the major differences between the function of the assault on the officer and that of the index offence. She also pointed out the entirely different circumstances in which the two incidents occurred. She said that the prison environment is quite different from the outside world and she did not think it likely that in the community there would be an incident like the one in the prison.

[63]With all due respect to the panel, I agree with the psychologist and I cannot agree with the panel's characterisation of the kicking incident as ' offence paralleling' . Since this was the point on which the panel ' took divergence' from the views of the professional witnesses this is a strong point in favour of a conclusion that the panel's rejection of the recommendations of the professionals was irrational in the above sense.

[64]Another point in favour of that conclusion is the panel's assertion more than once that the Applicant's risk of serious harm is not as clearly understood as needed to be. Again, I prefer the evidence of the psychologist who appeared to have quite a good understanding both of(a) the risk of a repetition of the index offence and of

(b) the risk of there being, in the community, anything like the kicking of the prison officer.

[65]I should say a word about the panel's conclusion that the risk of serious harm should be assessed as high rather than medium. It is necessary to explain the difference between(a) the statistical risk assessment tools used by probation to assess a prisoner's risk of reoffending and

(b) probation's clinical assessment of the risk of the prisoner causing serious harm to various categories of people in the event of serious reoffending.

[66]The statistical assessment tools are based on the prisoner's record of offending. They can be useful, but they tend to be misleading where (as in this case) the prisoner has few convictions but one or more of them are extremely serious. I agree that in this case little weight should be attached to the results of using the statistical tools.

[67]The clinical assessment of the prisoner's risk of causing serious harm applies only if he reoffends. I agree with the panel that if the Applicant should revert to his earlier lifestyle there would be a high risk of his causing serious harm. But the professional witnesses do not believe that there is more than a medium risk of that occurring, and I agree with them.

[68]In the case of a prisoner who has committed a very serious offence probation will often (very sensibly) keep the assessment of his risk of serious harm as high until he has been able to demonstrate in the community that it should be reduced. That will not prevent the Board from directing release on licence if the evidence shows that he meets the Codified Public Protection Test.

[69]I do not disagree with the panel's assessment that the Applicant's risk of serious harm if he should revert to his previous lifestyle can properly be assessed as high. However, given that the professionals assess his risk of that occurring as no higher than medium (with which I agree), that should not prevent him from being released on licence if the other evidence supports it.

[70]Finally, I have difficulty with the panel's view that the Applicant should be kept in prison to undertake further risk reduction work. He has successfully undertaken all the work that has been available to him. The prison authorities have not believed that there has been any ground for a clinical override to enable him to complete an accredited programme. No action was taken against him for kicking out at the prison officer in the circumstances described above, and it is highly unlikely that the authorities would now change their view about a clinical override. Nor is there any evidence that any other risk reduction work is necessary.

[71]In the light of my above conclusions, I am persuaded that the evidence is sufficient for me to decide that the panel's rejection of the professionals' recommendations should be regarded as irrational within the Wednesbury test and that I should accordingly accede to this application for reconsideration of the panel's decision. Ground 3: the panel's treatment of the kicking incident was procedurally unfair

[72]I doubt whether this was the case but since I am directing reconsideration on Ground 2 I need say no more about this ground. Decision

[73]For the above reasons my decision is that the panel's decision should be reconsidered. Jeremy Roberts 16 October 2025