Bhatti, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 256 (03 December 2025) [2025] PBRA 256

PBRA

Bhatti, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 256 (03 December 2025)

[2025] PBRA 256 · 2012-08-03

[1]This is an application by Bhatti ('the Applicant') for reconsideration of a decision of a panel of the Parole Board ('the Board').

[2]The Applicant is serving a sentence of life imprisonment for the murder of his wife. The sentence was imposed on 3 August 2012, and his minimum term ('tariff') was set at 11 years less the time which he had served on remand awaiting trial. The circumstances of the murder will be discussed below.

[3]The Applicant's tariff expired on 2 March 2023. His case has been referred twice to the Board by the Secretary of State for Justice ('the Respondent') to decide whether to direct his release on licence and, if not, to advise the Respondent about his suitability for a move to an open prison.

[4]The case has been complicated by the fact that the Applicant is liable to be deported to his native Pakistan. The present position about that will also be discussed below.

[5]The panel of the Board which most recently considered the case decided on 8 October 2025 not to direct the Applicant's release on licence and not to recommend a move to an open prison.

[6]An application has been made by the Applicant's solicitors on his behalf for reconsideration of the panel's decision.

[7]I am one of the members of the Board who are authorised to act as Reconsideration Panels and this case has been allocated to me. The request for reconsideration

[8]Rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended by the Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2024) provides that applications for reconsideration of panel decisions may be made, either by the prisoner or by the Secretary of State for Justice, in eligible cases.

[9]Rule 28(2) specifies the types of case in which reconsideration applications may be made. They include cases, like the Applicant's, where the prisoner is serving a life sentence.

[10]A reconsideration application may be made on one or more of the following grounds:(a) that the panel's decision contained an error of law and/or

(b) that it was irrational and/or

[11]In this case the application was made on all three grounds. It was made within the time limit for such applications and was therefore eligible for reconsideration.

[12]I have decided this case on the papers provided to me. They are:(a) the dossier of papers provided by the Respondent for the Board's review of the Applicant's case (the dossier now runs to page 479 and includes a copy of the panel's decision);

(b) the legal representative's submissions in support of this application; and

(c) an e-mail from the Public Protection Casework Section of the Ministry of Justice ("PPCS") stating that the Respondent does not wish to make any representations in response to the application. Background and history of the case

[13]The Applicant is now aged 45. He was born and brought up in Pakistan. His family are all well-educated. His father was in the Army and his mother was the head teacher in a school. He himself was trained in computing.

[14]He married his wife, to whom I will refer from now on as 'the victim', in Pakistan in 2004. They were cousins and the marriage was arranged through their sisters. They moved to the UK in 2006, at which time the Applicant was aged 25. He soon obtained employment in the field of information technology. On 12 July 2006 he obtained a residence card which was valid until 12 July 2011. The victim already had permission to reside in the UK, having lived here for a period of time before being taken back by her parents to Pakistan.

[15]The marriage appears to have been a successful one for some years, but problems developed as time went by. They had two children, a girl and a boy. Both children had serious health problems. The Applicant spent a lot of time with his son at a hospital when he was not working. He was badly affected by the death of his father. The marriage deteriorated, and the victim embarked on a relationship with another man. The Applicant committed some acts of domestic violence against her.

[16]In 2011 the Applicant applied for a permanent residence card. His application was refused on 8 November 2011. It appears that he was unable to show that he was in a stable relationship with the victim (who apparently did not support his application).

[17]On 29 February 2012, the Applicant killed the victim. He stabbed her with a kitchen knife and strangled her. The sentencing judge accepted that there were significant mitigating factors and that as a result of the cumulative problems in his life the Applicant was in a desperate state of mind by the time of the murder. Those findings were reflected in the unusually short tariff for a murder case of this kind.

[18]On 14 September 2012 the Home Office wrote to the Applicant to inform him that he was liable to deportation under the Immigration Act 1971.

[19]The Applicant's behaviour in prison has been good throughout his sentence. He has shown remorse for the murder and for his earlier domestic violence. In February 2016 he successfully completed the high intensity Healthy Relationships Programme, and he completed many other courses to equip him with skills of one kind or another. He is a 'Red Band' prisoner and has attracted many positive references from members of the prison staff.

[20]On 24 March 2020, the Home Office wrote to the Applicant again, informing him of a decision to deport him from the UK on the basis of his serious criminality. On 3 April 2020 he or his solicitors submitted asylum and human rights representations against his deportation. There was then a substantial delay before the immigration proceedings resumed.

[21]On 2 March 2023 the Applicant's tariff expired. In anticipation of that event the Respondent referred the Applicant's case to the Board to decide whether to direct his release on licence and, if not, to advise the Respondent about his suitability for a move to an open prison.

[22]In December 2023 a panel of the Board decided not to direct the Applicant's release on licence or to recommend a move to an open prison. There was no certainty as to whether the Applicant would be permitted to remain in the UK or whether he would be deported to Pakistan. His primary risk was clearly of violence towards any future partner.

[23]On 7 May 2024 the Respondent referred the Applicant's case again to the Board.

[24]On 15 October 2024 an official of the Home Office conducted a detailed review of the Applicant's immigration status. He decided that(a) the Applicant did not qualify for refugee status or humanitarian protection under the Refugee Convention and the Immigration Rules and

(b) deporting him would not be a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights and would not be contrary to the UK's Human Rights Act. A deportation order was therefore made. The Applicant was advised of his right to appeal to an Immigration Tribunal against the official's decision. His solicitors duly lodged the necessary notice of appeal.

[25]On 11 January 2025 a Member Case Assessment member of the Board decided on the papers that there should be no direction for release on licence and no recommendation for a move to an open prison should be made. However, the Applicant's solicitors made a successful application to a Duty Member that the case should proceed to an oral hearing.

[26]The oral hearing took place on 29 September 2025. It was conducted remotely by video link. The panel comprised two independent members of the Board and a psychologist member. One of the independent members chaired the hearing. The Applicant was legally represented. The panel had considered all the written evidence contained in the dossier provided by the Respondent which at that stage contained 454 numbered pages.

[27]The panel took oral evidence from the following witnesses:(a) the Applicant himself;

(b) his prison offender manager ('POM');

(d) a prison psychologist; and

(e) an independent psychologist instructed by the Applicant's solicitors.

[28]The panel observed that the appeal process against the decision of the Home Office official was ongoing. It appears that the 'first-tier' decision was against the Applicant but there is to be an appeal to the Upper Tier Tribunal. I have not seen the first-tier decision and I do not know when the appeal to the Upper Tier Tribunal is likely to take place. The Relevant Law The test for release on licence

[29]Under the Codified Public Protection test the panel could only direct the Applicant's release on licence if they were satisfied that his continued confinement in prison was no longer necessary for the protection of the public, and they could only be so satisfied if they considered that (if the prisoner were to be no longer confined in prison) there would be no more than a minimal risk of his committing a further offence so serious that it might result in serious harm to somebody else. The rules relating to reconsideration of decisions

[30]Under Rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended in 2024) a decision is eligible for reconsideration if (but only if) it is a decision that the prisoner is or is not suitable for release on licence. A decision not to recommend a move to an open prison is not eligible for reconsideration.

[31]The grounds on which an application may be made are as set out above (error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness). As noted above the application in this case is made on all three grounds.

[32]A decision that a prisoner is or is not suitable for release on licence is eligible for reconsideration whether it is made by:(i) A paper panel (Rule 19(1)(a) or (b)) or

(ii) An oral hearing panel after an oral hearing, as in this case (Rule 25(1)) or

(iii) An oral hearing panel which makes the decision on the papers (Rule 21(7)). Error of law

[33]Examples of errors of law which might afford a ground for reconsideration of a panel's decision are where the panel: a) misinterprets a legal instrument relevant to the function being performed; or b) has no legal authority to make the decision; or c) fails to fulfil a legal duty; or d) exercises a discretionary power for an extraneous purpose; or e) takes into account irrelevant considerations or fails to take account of relevant considerations; or f) improperly delegates a decision-making power.

[34]The task of deciding 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. That instrument will normally be the Parole Board Rules, but it may also be an enunciated policy, or some other common law power. The definition of irrationality

[35]The power of the courts to interfere with a decision of a competent public authority on the ground of irrationality was defined in Associated Provincial Houses Ltd -v- Wednesbury Corporation 1948 1 KB 223 by Lord Greene as follows:

"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 Parole Board is a public authority for that purpose, and the Wednesbury test therefore applies to applications to the High Court for judicial review of a panel's decision. It also applies to applications to Reconsideration Panels of the Board for reconsideration of a panel's decision on the ground of irrationality.

[36]In R (DSD and others) -v- the Parole Board

2018 EWHC 694

(Admin) ('the Worboys case') a Divisional Court applied this test to Parole Board decisions in these words:

" 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 ."

The same test of course applies to " no release" decisions.

[37]In R (on the application of Wells) -v- Parole Board

2019 EWHC 2710

(Admin) Mr Justice Saini set out what he described as a more nuanced approach in modern public law. This approach is " 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 formulation of the 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) .

[38]As was made clear by Mr Justice Saini, this is not a different test from the Wednesbury test. The interpretation of (and application of) the Wednesbury test in parole hearings (as explained in the Wednesbury and DSD cases) was of course binding on Mr Justice Saini. It is similarly binding on Reconsideration Panels.

[39]It follows from these principles that in considering an application for reconsideration a Reconsideration Panel cannot substitute its own view of the evidence for that of the panel who heard the witnesses and were able to assess their reliability. The Reconsideration Panel will only direct reconsideration on the ground of irrationality if the Wednesbury test is satisfied.

[40]A panel of the Board is not bound by the recommendations of professional witnesses, even if they are unanimous: its task is to make its own assessment of the prisoner's risk of serious harm to the public and its manageability on licence. It is however well established that, if the panel rejects the unanimous recommendations of the professionals, it must provide reasons for doing so and those reasons must stand up to close examination, otherwise its decision may be regarded as irrational. Equally if the panel provides no reasons at all, its decision may be found to be irrational because the Reconsideration Member (or the High Court if the case is referred to it for a judicial review) will have no means of knowing what the panel's reasons were and whether they would have stood up to close examination. The definition of procedural unfairness

[41]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.

[42]Examples of procedural unfairness which may be a ground for quashing a panel's decision on this ground are where: a) express procedures laid down by law were not followed in the making of the relevant decision; or b) the party was not given a fair hearing; or c) the party was not properly informed of the case against them; or d) the party was prevented from putting their case properly; or e) the panel did not properly record the reasons for any findings or conclusion; or f) the panel was not impartial.

[43]These are not the only possible grounds for a finding of procedural unfairness, but they are the ones most commonly alleged. The overriding objective is to ensure that the Applicant's case was dealt with justly. The application for reconsideration

[44]The legal representative submits extensive grounds for reconsideration. I will discuss these below. The reply on behalf of the Respondent

[45]As noted above the Respondent has offered no representations in respect of this application. Discussion

[46]I will consider in turn each of the grounds advanced by the Applicant's legal representative in support of this application for reconsideration of the panel's decision, starting with the allegation of irrationality. Irrationality

[47]It is convenient to set out at this point the helpful summary provided by the panel of the positive and negative factors on which they placed any weight. These were as follows:

"Positive factors • The [Applicant]'s custodial behaviour has been without concern, there has been no aggressive behaviour towards staff or another prisoner, he holds a unique and trusted position of employment within the prison, and he remain enhanced on [the] IEP [system]. • [He] retains the support of his family in the UK and abroad, and his friend.... • [He] is assessed as taking learning from interventions and support, in particular insight into his offending triggers, and the skills to manage them. • All professionals consider that there is no core risk reduction work outstanding. • Risk is not assessed as imminent if [he] is released into the community. • All professionals support [his] release into the community, if that were to be in the UK under licence. • The panel assess that the proposed risk management plan has the potential to manage [his] risk in the community if he remained in the UK. • [Both psychologists] consider risk to be manageable if [he] was to be deported to Pakistan and there was no external control." "

Negative factors • [His] immigration appeal remains unresolved and currently he is liable for deportation to Pakistan if released; an outcome that [he] does not desire. • [His] risk of intimate partner violence is assessed as high by his COM, and the panel agrees with this assessment. • [The prison psychologist] assesses that risk of harm is not imminent in the community but it would increase if [he] entered an intimate relationship. • All professionals assess that [his] primary risk is of intimate partner violence. • His COM assesses that risk of violence towards an intimate partner was more likely without supervision. • If deported, it is understood that any monitoring or supervision would be for the Pakistan authorities to consider, and no liaison would take place with UK Probation. • [The COM] assesses that in Pakistan there would be no professional support or supervision, and that there is no way of assessing the supportive or protective factors of his family there. • His COM does not consider [his] risk to be manageable in the community if not subject of supervision afforded by licence conditions. Consequently, he considers that risk is not manageable if [he] was in Pakistan. • The panel concluded that they could not be persuaded that risk is manageable at this point without external controls provided by licence conditions.... • The panel assessed that [his] risk of abscond could not be assessed as 'very low'...."

[48]Given the uncertainty as to whether the Applicant is going to be deported to Pakistan it was clear that in order to direct the Applicant's release from prison in the UK the panel would need to be satisfied that the test for release was met in relation to both possible scenarios. In other words, the panel could not direct release if on either or both of the scenarios the Applicant would pose more than a minimal risk of serious harm to the public if he were to be released into the community.

[49]It is fairly clear, from the panel's recital of the factors to which they attached weight, that they would have directed the Applicant's release on licence if it was simply a matter of releasing him to Approved Premises or some other address in the UK where he could be supervised with the proposed risk management plan in place. All the professional witnesses would have supported release on that basis.

[50]As is apparent from the panel's recital there was a conflict of opinion between the professional witnesses as to whether the Applicant would pose more than a minimal risk of serious harm to the public in Pakistan if he were to be deported. The two psychologists believed that he would not, and the COM believed that he would. The panel preferred the opinion of the COM.

[51]This means that I need to decide whether the panel acted irrationally in rejecting the recommendations of the psychologists. In order to reach a conclusion on that issue I have carefully examined(a) the written evidence of the psychologists and the COM,

(b) the panel's summary of their oral evidence at the hearing and

(c) the representations made by the Applicant's legal representative in support of the allegation of irrationality. In quoting various passages in these documents, I have avoided using the names of the Applicant and the witnesses and have adjusted the wording accordingly but have not made any significant changes.

[52]I will not spend any time on the evidence of the POM which was largely concerned with the Applicant's progress in prison. When asked by the panel about release to Pakistan he said he was not sure but accepted that it was possible that the Applicant could become violent within an intimate relationship there. He stated that he was still recommending release on the basis that the Applicant's immigration status was still not decided. The independent psychologist's assessment

[53]The very experienced independent psychologist is a Registered Clinical Psychologist, a Registered Forensic Psychologist and an Emeritus Professor of Forensic and Clinical Psychology. He carried out an assessment of the Applicant's risks at the request of the Applicant's solicitors. His detailed report was made in November 2024. A number of passages in his report are of particular relevance for present purposes. They are:

"How individuals behave is partly a function of their traits or personality systems, and partly a function of their environments or the situations they are in. More importantly however, the interaction or interplay of those two sets of variables is a more powerful determinant of behaviour than is either set considered alone. "

When individuals behave in a particular way during a specific period of their lives, it is not unreasonable to conclude that doing so reveals some feature of their character. Inferences are drawn concerning their personality traits, and on that basis it is often concluded that whichever feature has emerged is an enduring facet of their psychological make-up. "Examining the period between late 2010 and early 2012 when [the Applicant] showed pronounced antisocial and aggressive tendencies, by being violent to his wife and in due course killing her, it is not unnatural to reach the view that having acted in those ways he has demonstrated a capacity to do so again. What is often left out in how this is understood is the power of the situational factors or personal circumstances that were operating at that time, and the range of effects they were having on the individual's behaviour during that period. "The pattern of interaction between traits and situations that occurred at that time is however likely to have the same or a similar impact only if a very similar combination of those variables arises again. That is especially the case if there is an absence of the problem behaviour during all other phases of the person's life." "Perusal of the entries in the HCR-20 Version 3 table [a tool used by psychologists to assess risks] strongly suggests that this is a better explanation of [the Applicant's] behaviour in that stage of his life than the conclusion that he has a recurring tendency to act in the ways he did then that is likely to re-emerge in different circumstances. "The decline in his mental state that occurred then was a function of traumatic events and his increasing inability to deal with them which in due course had catastrophic consequences. These were events and situations of a kind he had not encountered before and was ill-equipped to deal with. In that respect however, he has developed considerably in the time since then." "It appears to me that the results of both the HCR-20 Version 3 and the SARA measures [another tool used by psychologists] point towards fundamentally the same overall conclusion: that [the Applicant's] index offence was a product of the convergence of a particular permutation of events and circumstances that is very unlikely to be repeated or reproduced in another phase of his life from this point onwards. "Nevertheless, it is not impossible to envisage that such an eventuality could occur. Given the potential gravity of what might transpire if it did, should [the Applicant] be directed for release, prudent steps should be taken in his parole supervision to ensure that any such development is monitored and potential warning signs are detected and heeded. Such potential warning signs are identified in the Parole Dossier as part of a proposed Contingency Plan. Foremost amongst them is of course the development by [the Applicant] of any new close relationship. He has accepted the importance of making that known to supervisory staff." "It is ... difficult to address the risk of re-offending if [the Applicant] were to be deported to Pakistan. I have not been able to find information on whether someone who had committed a serious offence of this nature would be likely to do so again. The website of the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics contains information on numerous topics but I was unable to locate data on this issue." "Drawing on the evidence summarised earlier on recidivism following homicide, and taking account of [the Applicant's] higher age and greater maturity; of the risk reduction work he has undertaken while imprisoned; and of his acquisition of conflict resolution skills, the likelihood of re-offending would be very low whichever country he was in following release (if that were to be directed). Given the specific circumstances of the index offence and the fact that it is the only offence of which he has been convicted, the recurrence of something similar or so serious appears highly unlikely." The prison psychologist's assessment

[54]The very experienced prison psychologist carried out an assessment at the request of the Board. She is a Chartered Psychologist and Registered Forensic Psychologist employed by His Majesty's Prison and Probation Service. She has an Honours Degree in Psychology and a Master's Degree in Forensic Psychology. Her report was made in May 2025. It includes the following passages which are relevant for present purposes. "In summary it is my view that the index offence was triggered by the prolonged period of stress and the associated impact that this had on [the Applicant's] emotional wellbeing and mental health, which made it difficult for him to regulate and manage his emotions appropriately. "It appears that in the lead up to the index offence [the Applicant 's] life was centred around working and looking after his children who had health problems. As such it seems that he neglected his own needs (his mental health, emotional needs and physical health) through the lack of purposeful and meaningful activities in his life and a lack of social interactions, which may have decreased his ability to tolerate and cope with stress. "[He] became distant and somewhat isolated from his personal support network and did not express his emotions appropriately. [His] behaviour became more impulsive and he expressed his emotions through aggression and violence, which appeared to be escalating and which culminated with him committing the index offence. "While it seems that [he] did experience some level of jealousy and negative emotions related to his wife's affair and the breakdown of his marriage, it would appear that the primary trigger for the index offence was the potential loss of his children. "There are a number of protective factors which appear to be present for [the Applicant]. Protective factors are those factors that may help protect an individual from offending in the future. Some of these factors may be in place currently or can be developed to support the management of risk. The following protective factors have been identified for [the Applicant]: · It is my view that [his] compliance with prison rules and regulations and his engagement with professionals suggests that he is likely to comply with licence condition and supervision requirements in the future. · [He] has undertaken interventions aimed at addressing and reducing his risks, it appears that he has developed skills from undertaking interventions and his behaviour in custody indicates that he has developed effective emotional regulation and coping strategies which, if applied in the future are likely to protect against re-offending. · [He] appears to benefit from having structure, routine, meaning and purpose in his life, this could be achieved through employment and recreational/leisure activities. · [He] is motivated to gain employment in the future, he presents with a strong work ethic and has life goals. · [He] has developed his insight into his mental health and his past mental health problems. He stated that he is now aware when his mental health is beginning to deteriorate and when he needs to take action to address it. He stated that currently he manages his mental health through activities such as yoga, meditation and outdoor exercise. He reported that he would seek help and support if he needed it. · [He] does not appear to hold any beliefs supportive of the use of violence/IPV nor does he appear to hold general antisocial or pro-criminal attitudes. · [He] reports having a pro-social support network. · [He] will be subject to external controls and monitoring through licence conditions and supervision requirement (it is noted that while this would be the case should he remain in the UK: it is, however, unlikely that he would be subject to supervision and monitoring should he be deported to Pakistan). · If [he] was released on licence in the UK he would be required to disclose any developing relationships. I would also suggest that it would be beneficial for such a licence condition to also include a requirement for [him] to notify those supervising him of any relationship breakdowns or problems within intimate relationships. "Due to risk being contextual, it is my opinion that it is not always helpful to provide a definitive risk rating. As such, potential scenarios when [the Applicant's] risk of re-offending could be increased are detailed below. Risk scenarios can assist in the development of risk management strategies that may reduce [the Applicant's] likelihood of offending in the future. "It is important to note that the risk scenarios are an extension of the case formulation and are possible scenarios based on what is known about [the Applicant] and his risk; this does not mean that [he] will definitely engage in these, but they are useful to guide risk management in the future. "[The author of another Psychological Risk Assessment in December 2022] outlined risk scenarios for the future use of violence. I have reviewed the risk scenarios provided by [her] and I am in agreement with the identified risk scenarios, as included below:

"Within a 'repeat' scenario, [the Applicant] may be in a situation he finds stressful and does not seek support. Such problems are likely to then build and become unmanageable. If he were then to be faced with a situation he finds to be emotionally triggering, being faced with loss, being challenged or being told something he does not like/agree with, he may react with violence. "

An additional scenario which may arise could be if [the Applicant] engages in another relationship in the community. If he were to experience difficulties within this relationship, feel challenged or fear that she may leave him, if this is something he is not in agreement with, this could lead to him using violence against a future partner. If not managing his emotions effectively, he may use verbal aggression against those who he is not agreement with or who are preventing him meeting his needs." "Conclusion/Professional Opinion: Based on this assessment of risk I do not consider the risk of violence to be imminent for [the Applicant], given that he is not currently in a relationship. This would be the case should he remain in closed prison conditions. [It might also be the case] if he was in open prison conditions, including during periods on ROTL in the community, and if he was released into the community. However, if [he] was to perpetrate Inter Personal Violence (IPV) the risk of causing serious harm would be high, given the extent of his past use of IPV. "[The Applicant's] use of IPV appears to be within a specific timeframe whereby he was not effectively managing his emotions and coping with stressful life circumstances. Based on the current assessment of [his] risk of future IPV it is my professional opinion that his risk could be managed in the community. [He] has undertaken interventions aimed at addressing his risk factors (including the high intensity Healthy Relationships Programme) and he appears to have benefitted from the interventions he has undertaken. "I do not consider that further risk reduction work is required in prison conditions, although it is my view that [the Applicant] should work on refreshing, consolidating and practicing applying his skills in an environment where he is exposed to real life risk factors and triggers. In particular, he may benefit from further work and support with regards to his emotion management and coping skills, and relationship skills (should he enter into an intimate relationship in the future). This could be undertaken by his COM or through OPD/IIRMS (Intensive Intervention and Risk Management Services). "Should the Parole Board direct [the Applicant's] release it is my understanding that due to his immigration status he would be detained. [He] is in the process of appealing his deportation on the grounds that he wishes to remain in the UK due to having his two children residing here and also a potential threat to his safety from the victim's family in Pakistan. "Should [his] appeal against his deportation be successful and if he is granted permission to remain in the UK I understand that he would initially be required to reside in Approved Premises, I do not consider that a PIPE Approved Premises would be necessary in [his] case. [He] reports that he has resettlement plans and options with regard to his future accommodation and employment (should he remain in the UK) and he has a personal support network. "If [he] is deported to Pakistan this would have an impact on the provision of risk management strategies and services. It is my understanding that [he] would not be subject to monitoring or supervision if he was in Pakistan and thus there would be no measures in place to monitor any signs that risk may be increasing and to manage this appropriately. In such circumstances I do not consider that risk would be imminent, given that [he] is not in an intimate relationship and his risk is related to intimate partner violence. "However, should he be deported and begins an intimate relationship risk may increase, especially if [he] was to experience life stressors which he does not cope with effectively. Such stressors, should he be deported, may include employment problems/difficulties securing employment, stressors related to fears for his safety and potential reprisals from [the victim's] family and stress related to the distance from his children." The COM's assessment

[55]The COM is a very experienced Probation Officer. He was the author of two reports to the Board. In the first, in June 2024, he provided a detailed assessment of the Applicant's risks and concluded by recommending that he should be moved to an open prison. That was clearly on the basis of the Applicant being permitted to remain in the UK. He did state briefly:

"I have liaised with the UK Borders Agency (UKBA) and have been informed that [the Applicant] will be detained in a detention centre if the Parole Board choose to direct release. UKBA also noted that at present there is no deportation order in place, and, in response to a query regarding what provision would be in place for risk management if he was deported to Pakistan, the answer is none and [the Applicant] would be subject to no monitoring or controls in his country of origin."

[56]His second report was in August 2025. He then recommended release on licence but again on the basis of the Applicant being permitted to remain in the UK. He stated:

"There has been no change in his status and he is appealing the decision to issue deportation papers and is confident this will be successful based on the situation with his son. As I have already stated in my earlier report, if he is deported to Pakistan he will not be subject to licence nor any other form of control or monitoring."

The oral evidence of the professional witnesses

[57]The panel summarised that as follows:

"[The prison psychologist] told the panel that she did not assess that a negative attitude towards women in general played a part in [the Applicant's] offending. [The independent psychologist] said that in his assessment of [the Applicant] he had not detected any controlling attitudes nor any misogynistic attitudes towards women. The panel accepted these assessments. "

Neither [psychologist] considered that the index offence had the characteristics of an 'Honour Killing' (as had been suggested). The panel accepted this assessment. "[The prison psychologist] opines that [the Applicant's] use of violence towards his wife is best understood in the context of intimate partner violence driven by poor emotional regulation, stress, difficulties coping and a loss of emotional control. She concluded that the index offence was triggered by the prolonged period of stress and the associated impact that this had on [the Applicant's] emotional wellbeing and mental health, which made it difficult for him to regulate and manage his emotions appropriately. Additionally in her view, while it seems that he did experience some level of jealousy and negative emotions related to his wife's affair and the breakdown of his marriage, it would appear that the primary trigger for the index offence was the potential loss of his children when he states that his wife had threatened to leave him, taking the children with her. "[The independent psychologist] agreed and told the panel that when [the Applicant's] daughter was born with hearing difficulties, [he] started to have concerns about marriage between first cousins. This was exacerbated following his son's birth, his health issues being even more serious. The stressors built when he discovered the affair, and his wife threatening to leave him and take the children was a tipping point. "This panel accepts the deeper understanding of [the Applicant's] offending behaviour which the two recent psychological reports have brought." "[The independent psychologist] provides an assessment of risk largely focussed on a potential repetition of the index offence (Murder) and less so on other pathways to risk of serious harm such as coercive control, assault, and psychological harm etc. He concludes that [the Applicant] poses a very low risk of a further homicidal offence and a low risk of any other kind of violent offence. "[The independent psychologist] told the panel that [the Applicant's] violence is associated with a certain period in his life and that it would require a similar set of circumstances, combined with a breakdown of coping mechanisms, for any risk of a repeat. He added though that [the Applicant] had more awareness and insight, and if he was faced by even remotely similar circumstances in the future, he would recognise the risk and seek help. "[He] did not accept that [the Applicant] may face equally stressful, yet different sets of circumstances on release that may mirror aspects of the index offence. For example, deportation, being unable to work, financial constraints, matters of disclosure and familial stressors. "[The prison psychologist] assesses that [the Applicant's] risk of violence would not be imminent in the community. His risk of serious harm would escalate to high if he used interpersonal violence. She assesses his risk of interpersonal violence is manageable in the community. She also assesses that if [the Applicant] was deported, his risk would not be imminent but would escalate if he entered a relationship. "All professionals consider that there is no core risk reduction work outstanding." "[The prison psychologist] stated during the hearing that she thought [the Applicant] had developed the internal controls to manage his risk if there were no external controls in place, as would be the case if returned to Pakistan. "[The independent psychologist] said that he was sure that [the Applicant] did not want a repetition of the index offence, and that [he] has the insight to recognise if risk was escalating and would seek help, even if it was just from his family. "The COM assesses that in Pakistan there would be no professional support or supervision to his knowledge and that he has no way of assessing the supportive or protective factors of his family there. [He] stated that his assessment of risk is based wholly towards a future partner and that the risk of violence was more likely without supervision. He opined that to suggest that [the Applicant's] risk is manageable without external licence would be reckless. He concluded that he supported release if it were to the UK but could not recommend that risk would be manageable in Pakistan without supervision." The representations of the Applicant's legal representative

[58]The legal representative has presented lengthy arguments in support of the application for reconsideration. On the issue of irrationality, she makes the following points:(1) The Applicant completed all his sentence plan objectives.

(2) All the professional witnesses agreed that all core risk reduction work had been completed: the HRP was the only intense and accredited course on the sentence plan (i.e. the plan proposed by professionals) and on completion of that programme it was not thought that any further risk reduction work was required.

(3) If the Applicant was released on licence pending the outcome of his appeal to the Upper Tribunal, he could (if granted bail by the tribunal) reside at an address approved by the COM until the appeal was concluded.

(4) The Panel were not able to make an informed assessment of risk because of the lack of information of how risk would be managed if the Applicant was deported to Pakistan, and they found that if removed to Pakistan there would not be the external controls to manage his risk.

(5) Not knowing what would happen if the Applicant is released and returned to Pakistan, they placed emphasis on the speculation of possible lack of monitoring in Pakistan.

(6) The COM was unable to assist the panel as to whether the Applicant's family in Pakistan are considered a protective factor: there had been no contact by probation with his family in Pakistan which was a gap in the evidence as a result of which the panel were not able to properly satisfy themselves about the level of support available.

(7) The Panel's decision is solely premised on the basis that were removal to take place his risk could not be managed in Pakistan. However, there is no imminent removal from the UK at this moment as there is still an outstanding appeal. Over the last 4 years matters have progressed slowly and the Applicant's continued detention on the basis that risk cannot be effectively managed if removed is irrational and unlawful, especially given that there is an outstanding appeal and the immigration matters have not been concluded.

(8) The Panel has acted to speculate on the determination of the immigration proceedings and based their decision on risk not being manageable if removed to Pakistan. My conclusions about the allegation of irrationality

[59]Having considered all of the above evidence and arguments I am satisfied that this is a difficult case in which views could and did reasonably differ. There was force in both views (the psychologists' and the COM's). I do not agree with the COM's suggestion of recklessness on the part of the psychologists. Their opinions were carefully thought out and persuasively presented. Some panels might well have agreed with them.

[60]However, they did acknowledge that professional supervision would have been desirable and that such evidence as there was tended to show that it would not be available in Pakistan. This clearly weakened the psychologists' opinions.

[61]The legal representative argues that the panel should have obtained definitive evidence as to whether there would or would not be any supervision or support for the Applicant in Pakistan if he is deported there, and that it was irrational for them to make a decision in the absence of an important part of the necessary evidence.

[62]The difficulty with that argument is that I have been informed that there is an agreement between the Board, the Home Office and the Foreign Commonwealth & Development Office. This agreement is not widely known so it is worth setting it out below. I have put the relevant parts in bold letters. Foreign National Offenders ('FNOs) When assessing risk, the Parole Board (panels) are legally bound to explore and assess risk to the public in other countries where there is a realistic prospect that the prisoner, if released, may travel there. It is important to understand what, if any, risk management will be in place outside of the UK. The role of the Home Office ('HO') and Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office ('FCDO'). The HO lead on managing the immigration status of all FNOs whilst they are in the UK. This includes assessing if the FNO meets the threshold for deportation to their home country, and if so, progressing their deportation/removal from the UK. If the FNO is being deported/removed from the UK, the HO will work with colleagues in the FCDO to consider what risks, if any, the individual may face on return to their home country. The HO does not have access to information regarding risk management or supervision powers available to foreign authorities, and neither the HO nor the FCDO can make any assessment regarding risks the individual may pose once returned to their home country. The FCDO can provide the HO with general information about the country and the HO can liaise with colleagues in the FCDO to ascertain if there are any ECHR (European Court of Human Rights) risks to the prisoner on return. There will be instances where a FNO Offender cannot be forcibly deported to their home country due to existing ECHR risks however the individual may ask to return to their home country voluntarily if released, despite the ECHR risks and in these circumstances the HO will work with the FNO to facilitate this. The HO and FCDO will rarely be able to provide panels with any information on how a Risk Management Plan ('RMP') will be implemented and managed outside of the UK. Once the prisoner is deported/removed, there will be no supervision in the other jurisdictions and the RMP would not be enforceable. Despite this, panels must continue to direct an RMP with details of how risk may be managed outside of the UK. Panels should be aware of the limitations of the information they are likely to receive and should refrain from making specific directions to the HO or FCDO to provide such information. Panels should not specifically direct information from foreign embassies, as this may compromise the safety of the FNO. Directions may be made for the COM to confirm details of an RMP in the UK and details of an RMP in the country where the individual may be deported to (this should not be a separate RMP document). However, the reality is that RMPs which can effectively manage risks in other countries will be rare. Accordingly, the panel may need to assess manageability of risk based only upon internal factors (how the prisoner can manage their own risks).

[63]In the light of this agreement it is clear that it would not have been appropriate for the panel to take the course suggested by the legal representative, whose remaining arguments on irrationality are, I am afraid, insufficient to persuade me that there was anything irrational (in the Wednesbury sense as explained above) in the panel's decision to prefer the evidence of the COM to that of the psychologists. Procedural Unfairness

[64]In support of this ground the legal representative advances the following arguments:

[65]"The COM is aware that [the Applicant] is a foreign national prisoner and has not made any contact with his family in Pakistan. Although he has spoken to family members (brother and sister) from Sweden and New Zealand. There was a lack of understanding of the living arrangement if removal were to become effective and whether the family is protective."

[66]I assume that the first sentence of this representation means that the COM has not made any contact with the Applicant's family members in Pakistan. The COM has spoken (in England) to three family members who live in Sweden or New Zealand but who have visited the Applicant here. It would have been open to the COM to obtain the contact details of the family members living in Pakistan and to arrange contacts with them. However, it would equally have been open to the Applicant or his legal representative to obtain statements from those family members (who are in regular contact with the Applicant). I cannot therefore find that there was any procedural unfairness in this respect.

[67]"The Panel failed to give proper consideration to the fact that at the current time [the Applicant] would not be removed to Pakistan given the outstanding Application. Furthermore, the risk with respect to [the Applicant] is driven by intimate partner violence which would take place were he to be in a relationship and the Panel were aware that [the Applicant] is not currently in a relationship. Thereafter were he to enter a relationship there were a number of factors/stressors that were present at the time of the index offence such as the terminal illness of his son, disability of his son, threat of removal of his children and his partner being unfaithful which contributed to the index offence. The likelihood of such stressors being present and a probability of offence repeating behaviour is assessed as being low in the OASys: OGRS3 probability of proven reoffending Low OGP probability of proven non-violent reoffending Low OVP probability of proven violent-type reoffending Low"

[68]There are a number of points here. The panel were of course aware that the Applicant was not going to be removed to Pakistan in the near future, but as I have explained above they were obliged to consider the longer distance future and the Applicant's risks in both the scenario of his being permitted to remain in the UK and the scenario of his being removed to Pakistan.

[69]The panel were also obliged to consider not only his risks in the current situation (where he was not in a relationship) but the time in the future when he might be in a relationship again (as he and his family hoped he would be).

[70]The OGRS3, OGP and OVP tools are just some of the risk assessment tools used by probation. They are statistical, i.e. they are based wholly or largely on the prisoner's record of offending. They can be useful but can be misleading in the case of a prisoner like the Applicant who has only one conviction but it is for a very serious crime. The other tools can be more useful in such a case. Thus:(a) SARA (a measure of intimate partner violence) indicates that the risk of the Applicant committing another act of such violence towards a future partner is medium to high; and

(b) probation's clinical assessment of his risks to the public (i.e. realistically members of the public with whom he might be in a future relationship) and children (i.e. their children) if he were to re-offend would be high.

[71]"The Parole Board failed ahead of the hearing to direct specific information from the witnesses in particularly to the COM about risk management to include how risk would be managed in Pakistan and in the UK and/or during the hearing after hearing evidence to seek further information about family and support in Pakistan, placing [the Applicant] at disadvantage in breach of the equality of arms principle."

[72]I am afraid that there was equality of arms: the Applicant and his legal representative had the right, if they wished to exercise it, to obtain information and evidence from the Applicant's relations in Pakistan. Again therefore, I cannot find that there was any procedural unfairness under this head.

[73]"All witnesses were in agreement that the primary risk was within an intimate relationship setting. It is a well-established and accepted phenomenon that any prisoner once tested in the open estate or community and upon demonstrating compliance and adherence to licence / ROTLs is able to demonstrate a reduction in risk. [The Applicant] is being denied the opportunity to demonstrate and evidence the reduction in risk for the duration that his Immigration matter remains outstanding".

[74]It is unfortunate from the Applicant's point of view that, because he is the subject of a deportation order and a negative decision by the first stage immigration tribunal, he cannot at this stage be transferred to open prison or released on licence. This is, however, the consequence of immigration law and there is therefore no procedural unfairness.

[75]"The COM's evidence is based on the fact that [the Applicant] has not evidenced a reduction in risk as the risk has not been tested in open conditions or the community and his assessment is based on the current facts that [he] is incarcerated. If released and evidence of compliance is demonstrated naturally over time [he] will be able to evidence a reduction of risk, with the propensity of compliance being likely and over time he would require less supervision and support. Given the policy that risk remains high in most cases until compliance is demonstrated after which risk is reduced . "The same argument was presented by the COM and accepted by the Parole Board in respect of transfer to open conditions that if a final decision were to be made about his removal his risk of abscond could not be considered very low. However, such a stage has not been reached. Again, the Parole Board has worked on the premise of a negative outcome in the immigration proceedings and failed to consider the contingency measures available when risk is deemed to have increased. In such circumstances contingency measures could be enacted and the prison/PPCS could return him to closed conditions."

[76]Again, there are several points here. As I have pointed out above the panel needed to consider both scenarios, and as discussed above the COM is correct to say that if the Applicant is deported to Pakistan it is likely that there will be no supervision or support of the kind which would be available in the UK.

[77]The panel have not worked on the premise of a negative outcome in the immigration proceedings: they have simply worked on the basis that both scenarios are possible.

[78]"Given that [the Applicant] will be subject to restrictions against making any application for travel documents/passport as per the proposed licence conditions. Until such a time that his immigration matters are concluded [he] will have demonstrated that his risk is manageable even if he is removed from the UK. Or alternatively, if released and risk can be managed in the community and were all avenues to be exhausted in his immigration proceedings and it was deemed that risk had increased contingency measures could be enacted and could be returned to custody ."

[79]The reality is that it is highly unlikely that the Applicant will be at liberty in the UK before the immigration proceedings are concluded.

[80]In the result I cannot conclude that there was any procedural unfairness in this case. Error Of Law

[81]The legal representative submits:

"The Parole Board has ample express and implied powers to enable the Board in the great majority of situations to give such directions as are needed to ensure that the proceedings before it is conducted fairly and justly having regard to the interests of the prisoner, the public and those who provide it with information to enable it to perform its role. The Parole Board has failed to properly apply the test for open conditions and the codified test for release to the current situation. The refusal to direct release on the basis that risk cannot be managed in Pakistan in a situation where his removal is not imminent nor in the near future, nor certain. Removal to Pakistan should not be the primary consideration, giving this outcome disproportionate and unfair weight over the possibility that he may be successful in his appeal or that there may be no resolution for a long period of time and he is being deprived of his liberty on the basis of an outcome that may not transpire leading to arbitrary detention contrary to Article 5 HRA. The Parole Board has failed to discharge its duty and was not able to apply anxious scrutiny as required in making their assessment of risk ."

[82]For the reasons which I have explained earlier in this decision I cannot accept that there was any error of law in this case. It was not necessary or appropriate for the panel to give any further directions. The panel fully complied with the test for open conditions. Their approach to the Applicant's possible removal to Pakistan was entirely correct. They certainly applied anxious consideration to the evidence and issues in this case. Decision

[83]I have a good deal of sympathy for the Applicant in the situation in which he finds himself. However, for the reasons explained above in detail I cannot find that any of the grounds for reconsideration of the panel's decision are established, and I must refuse this application.

[84]I think it is probably in the Applicant's best interests to remain in prison until his appeal to the Upper Tier Tribunal has been concluded. The reality is that it in all probability if the panel had directed his release on licence he would have been immediately detained in an immigration detention centre instead of being in a prison where he is well regarded and relatively comfortable. If his appeal is successful, I have no doubt that the Respondent will immediately refer his case back to the Board.

[85]I would hope that in fairness to the Applicant his appeal to the Upper Tribunal will be concluded sooner rather than later. The Respondent might wish to explain to the tribunal the situation in which he and the Board are placed.

[86]Again, the Applicant and his legal representative might wish to obtain statements from members of the Applicant's family in Pakistan concerning the support which they can provide to him if he is deported. Jeremy Roberts 3 December 2025