Halstead, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 232 (28 October 2025) [2025] PBRA 232
PBRA
Halstead, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 232 (28 October 2025)
[2025] PBRA 232 · 2025-09-11
[1]This is an application by Halstead (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of the Parole Board following an oral hearing on 11 September 2025, in an undated decision letter, 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(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:a. The dossier comprising 476 numbered pages including the decision, the subject of this application.b. Grounds dated 29 September 2025 submitted by the Applicant.c. Submissions from the Secretary of State (the Respondent) dated 13 October 2025. Request for Reconsideration[4]The application for reconsideration is dated 29 September 2025 and was made by the Applicant.[5]The grounds for seeking a reconsideration have been set out in the application form CPD2. The grounds are as follows: There was an error of law in that:(a) The Applicant disagrees that he lacks victim empathy having completed the Sycamore Tree course and having written a letter to his victim.(b) The dossier states he would refuse to go to approved premises but was prepared to do so as long as the ‘ correct procedure’ was followed.(c) The Applicant denies that he was under the influence of drugs at the time of recall and points out that he requested to undertake a drugs test which was not given to him. The procedure was unfair in that:(d) The Applicant claims to have been advised by his Prison Offender Manager (POM) and key worker prior to the hearing that the Parole Board would not release him due to him having been found in possession of a mobile telephone which led to a police referral and this led to him being unable to adequately present his application for release as he was under the impression he would not be released.(e) The panel did not fully consider the drug and alcohol work which the Applicant has completed in custody.(f) The panel did not consider the reasons why the Applicant was self-medicating with drugs, which was due to what he considers to be medical neglect.(g) The Applicant’s risk assessments of presenting a high risk of serious harm are unfair and unfounded. The decision was irrational in that:(h) The Applicant’s previous security file was included in the dossier, but not positive entries and achievements from other prison establishments.(i) The Applicant did not have access to his parole dossier during the hearing as his POM did not sit in the same room as him.(j) A risk has been identified of childhood trauma and mental health issues without acknowledging the work undertaken by the Applicant in custody. The Applicant has also generally claimed that:(k) The Applicant has addressed many of his risks during his time in a Therapeutic Community.(l) Releasing the Applicant at his sentence expiry date without support is not protecting the public. Background[6]The Applicant was sentenced to an extended sentence of 12 years, with a custodial element of 9 years and an extended licence period of 3 years, for an offence of s18 wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm on 25 April 2016. He was automatically released on licence on 2 April 2024 and recalled on 5 April 2024. Current parole review[7]The case was referred to the Parole Board by the Respondent by an undated referral following his recall to custody.[8]The Applicant’s case was first listed for oral hearing on 4 March 2025 which was adjourned on the day until 24 April 2025, when it was further adjourned so that a psychological risk assessment could be obtained. His full oral hearing took place via video link on 11 September 2025 before a three member panel of the Parole Board. The panel comprised two independent members and one psychiatrist member. Evidence was heard from the Applicant, who elected to leave the hearing after giving his evidence. Evidence was also heard from the POM, Community Offender Manager and the Applicant’s key worker. The Applicant was unrepresented at the hearing of 11 September 2025. The Relevant Law[9]The panel correctly sets out in its undated decision letter the test for release. Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)[10]Rule 28(1) and 28(2) of the Parole Board Rules provides the types of decision and sentence which are eligible for reconsideration. This decision is eligible for reconsideration. Irrationality[11]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.[12]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. ”[13]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).[14]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.[15]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.[16]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[17]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.[18]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.[19]The overriding objective is to ensure that the Applicant’s case was dealt with justly. Error of law[20]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.[21]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. The reply on behalf of the Secretary of State[22]The Respondent has made written submissions dated 13 October 2025. These address part of grounds (a) and (i). They state that the parole dossier was issued to the Applicant on 22 August 2025 by a POM, with it being documented that although the Applicant was reluctant to receive it at first, he eventually took the dossier but refused to sign the receipt. They also observe that there was no record of the Applicant having completed the Sycamore Tree course, which was not an accredited course. Discussion[23]The Applicant has not had the benefit of legal representation in making his application. The application form provides boxes which relate to each of the heads of challenge and the Applicant has entered text into each of the boxes. It is apparent that the grounds do not fit the various heads of challenge with which they have been associated. In order to fairly consider the Applicant’s application in circumstances where he is unrepresented, I have considered each of the grounds against the respective heads of challenge set out by the Applicant and then more generally, irrespective of the box into which the grounds have been placed. Error of law grounds[24]The Applicant claims there was an error of law in that:(a) The Applicant disagrees that he lacks victim empathy having completed the Sycamore Tree course and having written a letter to his victim.(b) The dossier states he would refuse to go to approved premises but was prepared to do so as long as the ‘ correct procedure’ was followed.(c) The Applicant denies that he was under the influence of drugs at the time of recall and points out that he requested to undertake a drugs test which was not given to him.[25]None of these grounds constitutes an illegality which might be considered an error of law. There is nothing in these grounds. Procedural unfairness grounds[26]The Applicant claims that procedure was unfair in that: (d) The Applicant claims to have been advised by his POM and key worker prior to the hearing that the Parole Board would not release him due to him having been found in possession of a mobile telephone which led to a police referral and this led to him being unable to adequately present his application for release as he was under the impression he would not be released. (e) The panel did not fully consider the drug and alcohol work which the Applicant has completed in custody. (f) The panel did not consider the reasons why the Applicant was self-medicating with drugs, which was due to what he considers to be medical neglect. (g) The Applicant’s risk assessments of presenting a high risk of serious harm are unfair and unfounded.[27]Ground (d) relates to the impression that the Applicant had that he would not be released by the Parole Board, he stating he had been advised by his POM and key worker that he would not be released due to the police referral over possession of a mobile telephone in custody. He claims that this impression led to him being unable to adequately present his application for release.[28]Having confirmed that he was content for the hearing to go ahead without the benefit of legal representation the Applicant gave oral evidence to the panel. Having given his evidence to the panel the Applicant left the oral hearing and did not hear the evidence of the professional witnesses. Prior to leaving the oral hearing he was given the opportunity to address the panel on why he should be released.[29]The decision letter reflects that the panel did not attach any weight to this incident concerning the mobile telephone in arriving at their decision and considered that there was sufficient information within the dossier to conduct an effective hearing without knowing the outcome from the police investigation.[30]I am satisfied that the Applicant was given the opportunity to adequately present his application for release and did so, there is nothing in this ground.[31]The panel considered the risk factors of drugs and alcohol, taking into account historic and current issues and the evidence about his health and well-being, reflecting the same in the decision letter. On the Applicant’s own account, he accepted current drug misuse in custody and acknowledged alcohol as a risk factor in the community. There is nothing in grounds (e) and (f).[32]The risk assessments of the Applicant by Probation were that he currently presents a high risk of serious harm to known adults, children, public and staff in custody, which would increase to a very high risk of serious harm to known adults and children. I am satisfied that the risk of harm assessments made by the panel in the decision letter took into account both the static risk assessments and the dynamically assessed risks. The Applicant has presented no evidence to substantiate his claim that they are unfair and unfounded as set out in ground (g), indeed the evidence was quite to the contrary.[33]There is nothing in any of these grounds which demonstrates that there was any procedural unfairness. The Applicant was plainly given opportunity to adequately present his application for release with knowledge of the evidence the panel had to consider and utilised that opportunity, he has not established any procedural unfairness. Irrationality grounds[34]The Applicant claims that the decision was irrational in that: (h) The Applicant’s previous security file was included in the dossier, but not positive entries and achievements from other prison establishments. (i) The Applicant did not have access to his parole dossier during the hearing as his POM did not sit in the same room as him. (j) A risk has been identified of childhood trauma and mental health issues without acknowledging the work undertaken by the Applicant in custody.[35]Grounds (h) and (i) cannot properly be said to be Wednesbury unreasonable; they do not relate to the decision itself.[36]I have considered in the alternative whether these might be said to be procedurally unfair.[37]Ground (h) is that the Applicant’s previous security file was included in the dossier, but not positive entries and achievements from other prison establishments. The dossier considered by the Parole Board is prepared by PPCS. The Applicant had the opportunity in advance of the hearing and when giving his evidence to the panel to present to them any positive entries and achievements from his time in custody that he wanted to draw particular attention to. There is nothing in this ground.[38]Ground (i) is that the Applicant did not have access to his parole dossier during the hearing as his POM did not sit in the same room as him. The decision letter records the location of witnesses who attended the oral hearing, using the designation ‘R’ for the POM and keyworker which indicates that they were in a hearing room in the prison in the same room as the Applicant.[39]The Respondent’s representations do not address this issue directly, explaining only that the dossier was issued to the Applicant on 22 August 2025 by a POM. The POM documented that the Applicant took the dossier but refused to sign the receipt for it.[40]The decision letter records that the Applicant indicated to the oral hearing panel that he had read the dossier.[41]Even if I approach this ground on the basis that the Applicant is correct in his assertion that he was seated in a different room to his POM, I do not consider this to amount to a procedural unfairness. I am satisfied that the Applicant had been issued with a copy of his parole dossier in advance of the oral hearing and had read it, enabling him to be properly informed of the matters the Parole Board had to consider. He had the opportunity to bring his copy of the parole dossier to the oral hearing or to ask at the oral hearing for a further copy. It is plain that a further copy of the dossier was held by his POM who was at the prison with him, and he did not make representations at the time to the panel that he wished to refer to it but had been prevented from doing so. He had clear opportunity to put his case properly to the panel as the decision letter reflects.[42]Ground (j) refers to the risk factors identified by the panel in their decision which included childhood trauma and mental health. A psychological risk assessment was obtained as part of the current parole review. Regrettably the Applicant did not participate in a clinical interview despite several opportunities to do so, and asked that the risk assessment be completed on the basis of available collateral information. The risk assessment addressed historical work undertaken by the Applicant and risk reduction work which remained outstanding. The decision letter reflected this, and I find there is nothing in this ground. Other general grounds[43]The Applicant claims more generally: (k) He has addressed many of his risks during his time in a Therapeutic Community. (l) Releasing him at his sentence expiry date without support is not protecting the public.[44]The decision letter reflected that the Applicant has spent time in a Therapeutic Community, completing the work on his third attempt in 2019 having been deselected in 2017 and 2018. This achievement was addressed in the evidence received and considered by the panel. There is nothing in ground (k).[45]The panel of the Parole Board properly applied the codified public protection test in its decision letter.
(l) Decision
[46]For the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the decision was irrational, procedurally unfair or that there was an error of law and accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused. Angharad Davies 28 October 2025