Sullamaimani, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 237 (29 November 2025) [2025] PBRA 237

PBRA
Sullamaimani, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 237 (29 November 2025)
[2025] PBRA 237 · 2025-09-15
[1]This is an application by Sullamaimani (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision dated 15 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 462 numbered pages), and the application for reconsideration. I have also had access to an audio recording of the hearing. Background[4]On 6 May 2016, the Applicant received an extended sentence for offenders of particular concern (SOPC) consisting of 16 years imprisonment with a one year period on extended licence following conviction for rape of a girl under 13 to which he pleaded guilty.[5]On the same occasion he was also convicted after trial of engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child under 16, sexual activity with a male child under 13 (no penetration), sexual assault of a male child under 13 and sexual assault of a female child under 13. He received determinate sentences of two years, three years, four years and four years respectively, all of which are now served.[6]The Applicant was 37 years old at the time of sentencing and is now 47 years old.[7]Key dates relevant to his SOPC are reported to be: a) Parole eligibility date: March 2024; b) Conditional release date: March 2032; and c) Sentence expiry date: March 2033. Request for Reconsideration[8]The application for reconsideration has been submitted by solicitors on behalf of the Applicant. It argues that the decision was irrational and procedurally unfair.[9]The submissions are supplemented by written arguments to which reference will be made in the Discussion section below. Current Parole Review[10]The Applicant’s case was referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State (the Respondent) in July 2024 to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to direct his release. This is the Applicant’s second parole review.[11]The case proceeded to an oral hearing on 1 September 2025, before a three-member panel including a judicial chair. The panel took oral evidence from the Applicant, the Prison Offender Manager (POM), the Community Offender Manager (COM) and a trainee forensic psychologist commissioned by HMPPS. The Applicant was not legally represented, although the decision records that the panel was satisfied that he would understand and be able to participate fully in proceedings before the hearing began, and had no basis to depart from that view once the hearing was complete.[12]None of the professional witnesses supported the Applicant’s release.[13]The panel concluded that although the Applicant had completed an accredited treatment programme, professionals reported that his understanding and progress were limited, and that he had not developed sufficient insight or internal strategies to manage his behaviour. He continued to deny the offences, to externalise blame and to show little understanding of the factors that led to his actions. The panel was also concerned by reports of inappropriate behaviour in custody and by his attitudes towards women, which were considered relevant to risk.[14]The panel accepted the consistent professional view that the Applicant had outstanding work to complete before risk could be safely managed in the community. It found that he did not yet have the openness, understanding, or internal control necessary to supplement external supervision arrangements. Having regard to the seriousness of his offences, his limited progress in addressing risk factors, and his lack of insight, the panel concluded that the statutory test for release was not met and made no direction for release. 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 . Irrationality[19]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 (CA) 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.[20]In R(DSD and others) v Parole Board [2018] EWHC 694 (Admin) the Divisional Court applied this test to Parole Board hearings in these words (at [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 .”
[21]In R(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 the Divisional Court in R(Secretary of State for Justice) v Parole Board [2022] EWHC 1282 (Admin).[22]As was made clear by Saini J in Wells, 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.[23]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.[24]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[25]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.[26]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.[27]The overriding objective is to ensure that the Applicant’s case was dealt with justly. The reply on behalf of the Respondent[28]The Respondent has advised that no representations will be submitted in response to this application. Discussion[29]The Applicant argues that the panel’s decision was both irrational and procedurally unfair on the basis that: a) The panel failed to allow adequate time for questioning and as such restricted answers from the Applicant. It is argued that he did not have the opportunity to submit his own oral evidence that was directly relevant to the panel’s assessment of risk and insight, a problem exacerbated by his language need; and b) The panel’s decision was irrational and failed to take into account relevant evidence. This relied on an incomplete and self-created assumption regarding insight, and the reached conclusion was not based on evidence.[30]I have listened carefully to the audio recording of the hearing. I have heard no evidence to support the Applicant’s assertions that the panel restricted him in any way from giving evidence or interrupted him unnecessarily. At the end of the hearing, the Applicant addressed the panel for around seven minutes. I have heard nothing that suggests he told the panel that he had prepared a closing statement, nor that he asked to read such a statement. There is no evidence that the panel prevented him from presenting any such statement for any reason. There is no evidence to support a finding of procedural unfairness arising from the panel’s handling of the hearing.[31]It follows that the panel’s decision cannot be irrational in reaching an adverse finding on insight since the Applicant was not denied the opportunity to present the evidence that it is claimed would have addressed that issue. Decision[32]For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that the panel’s decision was neither irrational nor procedurally unfair. The application for reconsideration is therefore refused. Stefan Fafinski 29 November 2025