Stevenson, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 234 (29 October 2025) [2025] PBRA 234

PBRA

Stevenson, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 234 (29 October 2025)

[2025] PBRA 234 · 2025-09-24

[1]This is an application by Stevenson (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of an oral hearing panel dated the 24 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 decision of the oral hearing panel and the representations relating to reconsideration submitted on the Applicant’s behalf by his legal adviser, and the representations by the Secretary of State (the Respondent). Request for Reconsideration

[4]The application for reconsideration was received on 14 October 2025.

[5]The grounds for seeking a reconsideration were in a narrative form. I have set out the identifiable grounds below. Background

[6]The Applicant is serving a sentence of life imprisonment. The index offence was wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The Applicant was aged 40 at the time of the index offence. He was aged 51 at the time of the oral hearing. The background to the index offence was that the Applicant had a history of intimate partner violence dating back to 1997. In 2010 he attacked his then partner head-butting, biting and punching her and attempting to strangle her. She received a fractured cheekbone, bite marks and bruising. That offending (a section 18 wounding). Five months after the expiry of his licence in relation to the wounding matter, the index offence was committed. The victim of the offence had been a partner for 17 days. The partner was attacked using feet, fists and a hammer. The attack was ferocious. The partner was rendered unconscious, had a broken jaw, collapsed lungs and bruising and bleeding of the skull. The victim was in a coma for three weeks and was left with brain deficits. The minimum tariff set by the judge in relation to the life sentence was five years and 302 days. The Applicant’s tariff expired in August 2020. The oral hearing panel were considering the third review following the expiry of the tariff. Current parole review

[7]The oral hearing was conducted by a panel of three Parole Board members. The members consisted of an independent chair a further judicial member and a third independent member. The panel considered the dossier and evidence given by a Prison Offender Manager, a prison commissioned psychologist and a Community Offender Manager (COM). The Applicant gave evidence and was legally represented at the hearing. The Relevant Law

[8]The panel correctly sets out in its decision letter dated 24 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)

[9]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)).

[10]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)).

[11]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

[12]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.

[13]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. ”

[14]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).

[15]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.

[16]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.

[17]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

[18]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.

[19]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.

[20]The overriding objective is to ensure that the Applicant’s case was dealt with justly. Error of law

[21]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.

[22]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

[23]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. The four factors the panel must take into account when applying the test are:(a) the progress of the prisoner in addressing and reducing their risk;

(b) the likeliness of the prisoner to comply with conditions of temporary release

(d) the benefit the prisoner is likely to derive from open conditions.

[24]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

[25]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

[26]The Respondent offered no representations. Discussion Ground 1

[27]It is submitted on behalf of the Applicant by the Applicant’s legal adviser that the oral hearing panel in this case acted with procedural unfairness because the panel ignored the fact that some matters which they wished to have clarified in terms of the Applicant’s potential arrangements in the community, were beyond the control of the professionals. In particular it was submitted that a specific Approved Premises could not be offered or guaranteed. It was also submitted that no further progress could have been made in relation to providing psychologically informed services in the community. Discussion

[28]This ground arises in circumstances where the oral hearing panel in this case had adjourned the matter, having partly heard the evidence, in order to secure more information about the Applicant’s risk management plan in the community. In particular the panel required firm information about such matters as accommodation and support services (given the Applicants risk). Although the panel were informed by the COM that there would be various referrals made in the event of the Applicant being directed for release, the panel indicated that it was not clear where the Applicant would reside, who would be acting as a point of contact or what specific services were available to him in the area where he would reside. There was also no guarantee of support from psychologically informed services. The panel took the view that the Applicant’s risk could not be safely managed or indeed properly assessed until the panel were confident about the arrangements which might be available to support the Applicant in the community.

[29]As is well understood, the role of the Parole Board panel is to make a determination and assessment of the evidence presented to it and to apply the statutory test. Whilst panels make every effort to secure sufficient information (as the panel did in this case with an adjournment). The role of the panel remains clear, namely, to assess all the evidence presented and reach a conclusion upon the referral. In this case there was a clear theme indicating a need for substantial support to be available to the Applicant to guard against possible relapse into substances and return to behaviour which elevated risk. The Applicant had had periods of concerning behaviour while in prison, albeit that in the months leading up to the oral hearing there had been a period of stability. Whilst all the professionals had supported release in this case, that support had been contingent upon a view that there should be substantial support services in the community to ensure that risk was managed. The panel detected no clear evidence that the support services were firmly in place and would therefore be available to manage the Applicant’s risk.

[30]It is fully accepted that the Applicant may feel aggrieved because of the paucity of services and places of accommodation which can be offered to prisoners on release. However, the panel have a clear mandate in relation to any decision relating to release. The panel are bound by the test and are not in a position to qualify the test to take account of the possible absence of services to manage risk in the community.

[31]For this reason, I am not persuaded that the panel acted with procedural unfairness. The panel made every effort to advance the risk management plan by offering the adjournment and requesting detailed information. The panel could only act upon the information which was presented to them. I am not therefore persuaded that the panel acted with procedural unfairness in reaching their decision. Ground 2

[32]It is submitted by the Applicants legal adviser that the decision by the panel not to recommend a progressive move to open conditions was irrational. Discussion

[33]As noted above a decision as to whether to recommend a transfer to open conditions is not amenable to reconsideration. Ground 3

[34]It is submitted on behalf of the Applicant that all professional witnesses at the oral hearing and in the updated reports were supportive of the Applicant’s release into the community and the panel therefore acted irrationally in failing to take account of the views of all professionals. Discussion

[35]This was a case where the panel were cognisant of the fact that there were competing factors relating to the Applicant’s behaviour which required to be balanced in reaching their conclusion. The panel acknowledged that the Applicant, since October 2024, had been abstinent of substances and not shown aggression within prison. The panel acknowledged that this was a positive development and one which they hoped would be sustained in the longer term. Balanced against these positive issues the panel took account of the seriousness of the index offence which involved extreme violence upon a victim who had only recently met the Applicant. Also considered was previous intimate partner violence, the Applicant’s assessed levels of risk, the risk factors and concerns regarding substance misuse and aggression which had been recorded as being serious prior to the period of stability over the last 11 months before the panel hearing. The panel also took account of interventions which had been undertaken to address the risk of violence and to address substance misuse. The panel’s major concern was that there remained a potential risk of returning to substance misuse to manage emotions. Any such return could result in violence and aggression as had occurred in prison prior to October 2024 and in the community prior to the index offending.

[36]The panel had the advantage of the dossier containing reports and other material. They also had the advantage of seeing and hearing the Applicant as well as the witnesses. Panels of the Parole Board are not obliged to adopt the opinions and recommendations of professional witnesses. It is their responsibility to make their own risk assessments 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. They 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, as was observed by the divisional Court in DSD they have the expertise to make the assessments.

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

[38]In this case I am satisfied that the panel set out its reasons for declining to follow the views and recommendations of the professional witnesses. As indicated above, those views were highly contingent upon the availability of a number of services which were far from guaranteed. Where there is a difference of opinion between the panel and professionals it was plainly a matter for the panel to make a final and considered assessment and decision upon the evidence. Provided the reasons given are soundly based on evidence as well as rational and reasonable or at least not so outrageous in the sense expressed above it will be inappropriate to direct that the decision be reconsidered unless it is manifestly obvious that there are compelling reasons for interfering with that decision. I am not persuaded that there are compelling reasons for interfering with the decision of the panel which is clearly explained within the decision letter itself. I therefore do not direct reconsideration. Decision

[39]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 Stephen Dawson 29 October 2025