Tompson, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 230 (22 October 2025) [2025] PBRA 230
PBRA
Tompson, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 230 (22 October 2025)
[2025] PBRA 230 · 2025-09-11
[1]This is an application by Tompson (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision dated 11 September 2025 not to direct his release. The decision was made by a panel following an oral hearing.[2]Rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended) (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.[3]I have considered the application on the papers. These are the decision, the dossier (consisting of 724 numbered pages), and the application for reconsideration. Background[4]On 1 June 2012, the Applicant received three discretionary life sentences following conviction for causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily harm, sexual assault on a female by penetration and attempted rape. He pleaded guilty to all three charges. The tariff on each life sentence was set at 67 months and expired in January 2018.[5]The Applicant was 19 years old at the time of sentencing and is now 32 years old. Request for Reconsideration[6]The application for reconsideration has been submitted by solicitors on behalf of the Applicant. It argues that the decision was procedurally unfair.[7]The submissions are supplemented by written arguments to which reference will be made in the Discussion section below. Current Parole Review[8]The Applicant’s case was referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State (the Respondent) in August 2024 to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to direct his release. This is the Applicant’s sixth parole review.[9]A previous panel of the Parole Board completed a review of the Applicant’s detention in February 2024 and that panel made a recommendation for open conditions. That recommendation was not accepted by the Respondent. The Applicant challenged the lawfulness of the decision of the Respondent on several grounds. The Respondent’s decision was quashed following a judicial review in May 2025 ( R (Tompson) v Secretary of State for Justice [2025] EWHC 1471 (Admin) ). The Applicant’s case was remitted for re-determination following an appropriate oral hearing. The judge considered it was then a matter for the Respondent to determine whether that hearing should arise from a referral back to the Parole Board or by the Respondent convening such a hearing.[10]The Respondent elected to refer the case to the Parole Board to conduct a hearing. Following further proceedings in July 2025 (AC-2024-MAN-000406) the High Court ordered that an oral hearing should be held on an expedited basis, to conclude no later than 13 September 2025. Accordingly, the case was listed for an oral hearing on the first available date that an effective hearing could take place.[11]The case proceeded to an oral hearing on 21 August 2025, before a three-member panel including a psychiatrist specialist member. The panel took oral evidence from the Applicant, the Prison Offender Manager (POM), a Senior Probation Officer (SPO) standing in for the Community Offender Manager (COM) and a forensic psychologist commissioned by HMPPS. The Applicant was legally represented throughout the hearing.[12]In the professional opinions of all witnesses, the Applicant was not suitable for release. The POM considered that his risks were such that he could transfer to open conditions. The psychologist and SPO (both personally and on behalf of the COM) did not think that the Applicant was ready for a move to open conditions.[13]The panel was not satisfied that the Applicant’s risks could be safely managed in the community and made no direction for release, concluding that he had further work to do in terms of developing his insight into his risks and his ability to manage himself, using the support of those supervising him, before he could be considered to have reduced his risk sufficiently to be managed in the community.[14]The panel also made no recommendation for open conditions, concluding that he had not yet reduced his risk sufficiently to be managed in open conditions, and in particular noting the psychological risk assessment that indicated that his risk was likely to be imminent if in the community, whether on licence or on temporary leave from open conditions. The Relevant Law[15]The Parole Board will direct release if it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined. Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)[16]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)).[17]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)).[18]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 . Procedural unfairness[19]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.[20]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; and/or(e) the panel was not impartial.[21]The overriding objective is to ensure that the Applicant’s case was dealt with justly. The reply on behalf of the Respondent[22]The Respondent has advised that no representations will be submitted in response to this application. Discussion[23]The Applicant argues that the panel’s decision was procedurally unfair as:(a) the panel did not give due consideration to an application for an adjournment,(b) the Applicant’s long-standing legal representative was unavailable;(c) it was not clear whether the panel gave due consideration to closing written legal submissions; and(d) the panel indicated at an earlier case conference that it understood that the Applicant was commissioning his own psychological assessment.[24]The application particularly notes that the Applicant “ was making an application for release” .[25]On the evidence before me, I find the assertion that the Applicant was seeking release at the hearing to be unfounded. I do so for the following reasons: a) The Applicant’s closing submissions (22 August 2025, dossier, p. 669) state “ [The Applicant’s] application is for a recommendation from the Parole Board that he is downgraded to Category D status” and (p. 674) “ the application is made for a recommendation that [the Applicant] is downgraded to Category D conditions” . b) The decision header notes (p. 700) that the outcome sought was “ Recommendation for open conditions” . c) The decision ‘Any other information’ section (p. 705) notes that (in the hearing) “ [The Applicant’s legal representative] confirmed that [the Applicant’s] application at the hearing was for a recommendation for open conditions”. d) The decision (p. 718, para. 4.4) notes “ While [the Applicant] did not wish to apply for release, he nonetheless offered the opinion that he was ready to be released” .[26]Although the application sets out a number of purported procedural flaws, no argument is made as to why they would render the decision not to direct the Applicant’s release unfair. The Applicant was not seeking release, and the panel did not direct release. Therefore, the alleged defects could only go to the panel’s decision not to recommend open conditions: a decision which lies outside the scope of the reconsideration mechanism and therefore must fail. Decision[27]For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that the panel’s decision not to direct the Applicant’s release was procedurally fair. The application for reconsideration is therefore refused. Stefan Fafinski 22 October 2025