Wood, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 224 (30 October 2025) [2025] PBRA 224

PBRA

Wood, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 224 (30 October 2025)

[2025] PBRA 224 · 2025-09-19

[1]This is an application by Wood (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of an oral hearing panel dated the 19 September 2025 the decision was not to direct 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

[3]I have considered the application on the papers. These are the dossier, the application for reconsideration drafted by the Applicant’s legal adviser, the decision of the Oral Hearing Panel and the representations from the Secretary of State (the Respondent). Request for Reconsideration

[4]The application for reconsideration is dated 26 September 2025.

[5]The grounds for seeking a reconsideration are set out below Background

[6]The Applicant is serving a sentence of life imprisonment. The minimum term imposed by the judge was nine years and one month. The Applicant’s tariff expired in May 2023. The Applicant was aged 26 at the time of sentence. The Applicant was aged 38 at the time of the oral hearing. The Applicant was sentenced for a number of offences. The sentence of life imprisonment was imposed in relation to an offence of inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent (S18). There were also associated offences of affray, two offences of dwelling house burglary and attempted robbery. The offences of affray, burglary and attempted burglary were committed while the Applicant was on bail in relation to the initial index offence. The judge described the offending as a “ merciless and cowardly attack ”. Current parole review

[7]The referral by the Secretary of State requested that the Parole Board consider whether the Applicant should be subject to a direction for release. If not the panel were asked to consider whether there should be a recommendation that the Applicant be transferred to an open prison.

[8]The Parole Board panel consisted of a judicial chair and two independent Parole Board members. The panel heard evidence from the Prison Offender Manager (POM), the Community Offender Manager (COM) and a custody support worker. The Applicant gave evidence and was legally represented. The Relevant Law

[9]The panel correctly sets out in its decision letter dated 19 September 2025 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)

[10]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)).

[11]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)).

[12]A decision to recommend or not to recommend a move to open conditions is not eligible for reconsideration under rule 28. This has been confirmed by the decision on the previous reconsideration application in Barclay

[2019] PBRA 6

. Irrationality

[13]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.

[14]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. ”

[15]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).

[16]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.

[17]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.

[18]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

[22]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.

[23]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

[24]The test to be applied when considering the question of transfer to open conditions is the subject of a well-established line of authorities going back to R (Hill) v Parole Board

[2011] EWHC 809 (Admin)

and including R (Rowe) v Parole Board

[2013] EWHC 3838 (Admin)

, R (Hutt) v Parole Board

[2018] EWHC 1041 (Admin)

. The test for transfer to open conditions is different from the test for release on licence and the two decisions must be approached separately and the correct test applied in each case. The panel must identify the factors which have led it to make its decision.

[25]Before recommending a transfer to open conditions, the Parole Board must consider all information before it, including any written or oral evidence obtained by the Board and whether the following criteria are met: a) the prisoner has made sufficient progress during the sentence in addressing and reducing risk to a level consistent with protecting the public from harm (in circumstances where the prisoner in open conditions may be in the community, unsupervised under licensed temporary release); and b) the prisoner is assessed as presenting a low risk of abscond.

[26]The Parole Board must recommend a move to open conditions only where it is satisfied that the two criteria (as described above) are met.

[27]In Oyston

[2000] PLR 45

, at paragraph 47 Lord Bingham said: “ It seems to me generally desirable that the Board should identify in broad terms the matters judged by the Board as pointing towards and against a continuing risk of offending and the Board's reasons for striking the balance that it does. Needless to say, the letter should summarise the considerations which have in fact led to the final decision. It would be wrong to prescribe any standard form of Decision Letter and it would be wrong to require elaborate or impeccable standards of draftsmanship. " Reconsideration as a discretionary remedy

[28]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

[29]The Respondent offered no representations. Grounds and Discussion Ground 1

[30]It is submitted on behalf of the Applicant that the panel were procedurally unfair in their assessment of various incidents relating to drug misuse and possibly drug dealing. In particular it is submitted that the panel failed to follow the principles in the case of Pearce and the Parole Board guidelines relating to assessing allegations. Background

[31]To consider this ground, it is necessary to comment upon the background of the Applicant’s initial convictions and the consequent assessment by the panel of the Applicant’s index offending and, in particular, the ongoing concerns relating to drug misuse.

[32]So far, as the index offending was concerned, the panel noted that there were a series of offences which were associated with drug misuse, drug dealing and violence. The Applicant was convicted of being involved with a group of men who were armed with weapons and who attacked a person (thought to be a rival drug dealer) the victim received serious injuries and severe mental trauma.

[33]Two months later while on bail, the Applicant was involved in a further violent incident which caused fractures to the jaw of the victim.

[34]A further incident involving violence related to the Applicant entering a newsagents and threatening a staff member with a knife, demanding money. At the time of the arrests the Applicant told his probation officer that he had spiralled into drug and heavy alcohol use which contributed to the offending. Prior to the index offences the Applicant had a poor record which involved violence and robbery. Compliance with court orders had also been poor. Discussion

[35]The panel in their assessment of the Applicant’s background concluded, on the basis of the Applicant’s offending history, that the Applicant had been resistant to authority and seen criminal behaviour as a routine and acceptable part of his way of life.

[36]On the basis of the material on the dossier the panel concluded that the relevant risk factors in relation to the Applicant included; impulsivity, poor decision-making, poor consequential thinking, a sense of entitlement, misuse of drugs and alcohol, poor conflict management skills, use of threats and instrumental violence, the carrying of weapons, poor emotional management and misplaced loyalty to associates.

[37]The panel noted, that in 2024, the Applicant had appeared before an oral hearing panel. However, two weeks before that hearing the Applicant had tested positive for an illicit drug. The 2024 panel recommended a transfer to open conditions which was declined by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State suggested that it would be expected that the Applicant showed a sustained drug free period before progression was indicated (the 2025 panel specifically noted that they were not bound by the views of the Secretary of State, but, as was required of them, undertook an independent assessment of current risk)

[38]The panel, in its decision, then referred to incidents (since the last review) relating to alleged drug use and observations of being under the influence of drugs in prison. In the main the Applicant disputed the observations (of being under the influence of drugs), although he accepted any testing which returned a positive result.

[39]Within the decision, the panel noted firstly that the Applicant did not see drugs as his main problem, but regarded depression as the catalyst for drug relapse. The panel decision also reflects the fact that the panel, during the course of the hearing, had addressed (with the Applicant) the incidents relating to alleged drug use and being under the influence of drugs. The incidents had been listed as security entries and negative entries in the Applicant’s prison records.

[40]The panel’s overall assessment was that the Applicant’s drug use (and possibly drug trading) in prison - was more extensive than he was prepared to accept, and was occurring despite him working with the drug misuse professionals and having been on a specialised drug recovery wing.

[41]The fundamental argument raised on behalf of the Applicant in this ground is that the panel in reaching the conclusion relating to drug use and misuse failed to appropriately apply the principles of the case of Pearce .

[42]Set out below is an extract from the decision in Pearce which is relevant to this submission. However, in brief, the requirements of a Parole Board panel when assessing disputed allegations is firstly to identify those allegations and to identify whether they are relevant to risk. So far, as this first requirement is concerned, I am satisfied that the panel clearly identified concerns about drug misuse and about entries on the prison record relating to illicit drug issues. The panel were then obliged to assess the credibility of the allegations and to offer the Applicant a full opportunity to comment upon them. I am also satisfied that the panel applied this part of the requirement.

[43]The panel were finally obliged to consider whether initially they could reach a conclusion on the balance of probabilities about any individual disputed allegation. The panel made no formal findings using the standard of the balance of probabilities, however, as is clearly indicated in the case of Pearce , panels of the Parole Board are not expected to entirely ignore issues which may not achieve the standard of a finding on the balance of probabilities.

[44]Panels are entitled (and required), because of the fact that they are assessing risk to the public, to take into account allegations and give them such weight as considered appropriate in a holistic assessment of all the information before them. In particular, the panel were entitled to take account of allegations where there is a “ serious possibility ” that they may be true. As noted below, in these circumstances, the panel should proceed with considerable caution because of consequences to the prisoner.

[45]In my determination, the panel adhered to the principles of Pearce . The Applicant was given an opportunity to comment upon the allegations, the panel had before them allegations which had been formally recorded by the prison. It is suggested by the Applicant’s legal adviser that the panel had an obligation to undertake further investigations and enquiries into the background to the security allegations and the negative entries. It is well understood that it is unlikely that any further information would be forthcoming in relation to such security information. The panel were clearly obliged to act with caution and fairness, however the panel’s duty was to reach a conclusion upon the basis of the evidence presented at the hearing. The panel had a history of the Applicant being involved in drug misuse associated with the index offences, the panel had historical evidence of drug misuse within the prison itself. I am not persuaded that the panel would have been acting procedurally unfairly in reaching the conclusion that there was a “ serious possibility ” that the allegations were credible given the surrounding circumstances and history in this case. I am therefore not persuaded that the panel acted with procedural irregularity in concluding that the (more recent) allegations relating to drug use and association, were credible and therefore were relevant in terms of assessing future risk.

[46]The Applicant’s legal adviser is critical of the panel’s wording in relation to their conclusions namely “ the panel formed the view that (the Applicant’s) drug use, and possibly trading, in prison has been more extensive than he cares to admit ,”. Whilst it may be helpful for a panel to specifically reference the wording in the case of Pearce , it is clear from this wording that the panel had come to the conclusion that there was a serious possibility that the Applicant had been involved in drug use and possibly trading. As noted, the case of Pearce specifically indicates that panels of the Parole Board would be expected to take a holistic view of the evidence. It is also the case that the panel would be entitled to take account of patterns of behaviour in reaching its conclusion relating to risk.

[47]For the reasons set out above I am not persuaded that the panel failed to adhere to the principles of the case of Pearce . The panel were entitled to address the allegations recorded on the dossier. The panel gave the Applicant a full opportunity to comment upon the allegations. The panel were then obliged to make an assessment of the allegations taking account of the entirety of the evidence. The written decision indicates that the panel followed these requirements, and for these reasons I am not persuaded that the panel, in reaching the conclusion that they did in connection with the Applicant’s drug use and negative behaviour entries, acted with procedural impropriety.

[48]Extract from the Supreme Court judgment in Pearce Paragraph 87: “We summarise our conclusions as follows: i. There is no general legal rule that in making a risk assessment the Board must adopt a two-stage process of making findings of fact on the balance of probabilities and then treating only those matters on which it has made findings of fact as relevant to the assessment of risk. ii. The Board’s task is to address whether the safety of members of the public requires that the prisoner should remain confined. In so doing, the Board must have regard to the consequences of its decision on the interests of the prisoner, and the hardship he may suffer if he no longer needs to be confined in order to protect the public. iii. There is no rule of substantive fairness, akin to a legitimate expectation, which requires the Board to have regard only to found facts in its assessment of risk. iv. What procedural fairness requires of the Board in its impartial performance of its statutory remit is determined by the statutory terms of that remit and the wider legal context of the common law. v. If weight is to be given to an allegation of criminal or other misbehaviour in the risk assessment, the Board should first attempt to investigate the facts to enable it to make findings on the truthfulness of the allegation. If, as may often be the case despite its efforts to obtain the needed information, the Board is not able to make such a finding, it should investigate the facts to make findings as to the surrounding circumstances of the allegation which may or may not point to behaviour by the prisoner which is relevant to the assessment of risk. vi. In some circumstances, however, the Board may not be able to make findings of fact as to the truth of an allegation either because of an inability to obtain sufficiently reliable evidence or because it would be unfair to expect the prisoner to give an answer to the allegation when he is facing criminal or prison disciplinary proceedings in relation to that allegation. vii. In such circumstances the Board, having regard to public safety, may take into account the allegation or allegations and give it or them such weight as it considers appropriate in a holistic assessment of all the information before it, where it is concerned that there is a serious possibility that those allegations may be true. But the Board must proceed with considerable caution in this exercise because of the consequences of its decision on the prisoner. Procedural fairness requires the Board to give the prisoner the opportunity to make submissions about how the Board ought to proceed. There may be circumstances where, because of the inadequacy of the information available to the Board, it concludes that it should not take account of an allegation at all. There may also be circumstances where the information is less than would be desired but the allegation causes sufficient concern as to risk that the Board treats it as relevant. Its assessment of the weight to be attached to an allegation is subject to the constraints of public law rationality. Ground 2

[49]It is submitted on behalf of the Applicant that the panel’s decision was irrational in that the panel failed to take account of the professional recommendations of the witnesses and failed to explain its conclusions. Discussion

[50]As noted above the primary concern in relation to the Applicant’s risk was the history of association with drug misuse and, in the case of the index offences, violence associated with drug misuse issues. As noted in the panel decision both the POM and the COM took the view that there were positive factors which indicated that the Applicant’s risk could be safely managed in the community.

[51]The primary issue noted was the fact that there had been no instances of violence during the Applicant’s prison sentence. The Applicant’s POM had spoken highly of aspects of the Applicant’s positive conduct in prison. The Applicant’s POM had acknowledged that there had been difficulties, including a warning regarding the removal of food from the kitchen without authority, and the positive drug tests, however overall the Applicant’s POM took the view that the Applicant would be likely to seek help in the community if he was relapsing, and that there would be warning signs within the community which would enable interventions to take place should his risk elevate.

[52]The Applicant’s COM also supported release and was impressed by the absence of violence or aggression in custody and noted that there was no further risk reduction work which could be undertaken. The COM had taken the view that the Applicant had “ insight ” into his risks and that he could be appropriately managed in the community.

[53]It is clear from the decision that the panel had taken account of the views of the POM and COM. However, the panel specifically indicated that they disagreed with the POM and COM. The panel took the view that both professionals had not attached sufficient weight to the issue of drug use and the negative behaviour entries when considering the risk to the public. The panel also took the view that the POM and COM had underestimated the historical records of breach and non-compliance prior to the index offence.

[54]In the application for reconsideration, the Applicant’s legal adviser listed a number of positive points which were suggested by the POM and some which were suggested by the COM. The complaint is that the panel failed to address each point individually and thereby failed to explain the decision in detail.

[55]I am not persuaded by this argument. The panel were not obliged to address each and every point within the panel hearing. The panel were obliged to explain the basis of their decision, which in my determination, was clear within the decision letter. The panel were entitled to take a different view from the professionals of the evidence presented at the hearing.

[56]The decision was based upon a credible concern about continuing association by the Applicant with drug use and misuse, and in particular the clear association between drug misuse and the serious nature of the index offences. The panel had the advantage of the dossier, reports and other material and had the advantage of seeing and hearing the Applicant as well as the witnesses. Panel’s of the Parole Board are not obliged to adopt the opinions and recommendations of professional witnesses. It is their responsibility to make their own assessment of risk and to evaluate the likely effectiveness of any risk management plan proposed. They must make up their own minds on the totality of the evidence that they hear, including any evidence from the Applicant. Panels would be failing in their duty to protect the public from serious harm (while also protecting the prisoner from unnecessary incarceration) if they failed to do just that.

[57]Where a panel makes a decision contrary to the opinions and recommendations of professional witnesses it is important that they should explain clearly the reasons for doing so and it stated reasons should be sufficient to justify its conclusions as per Wells above.

[58]As noted above I am satisfied that the panel explained the reasons for its decision. The panel also explained why they were not persuaded by the evidence of the professionals. The reasons were in my determination soundly based upon admissible evidence.

[59]Where a panel arrives at a conclusion exercising its judgement based upon the evidence before it, 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. I find no such compelling reasons in this case, accordingly I do not direct reconsideration in this case. Decision

[60]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. HH S Dawson 30 October 2025