Meadley, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 260 (28 November 2025) [2025] PBRA 260

PBRA

Meadley, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 260 (28 November 2025)

[2025] PBRA 260 · 2016-01-08

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

[2]The Applicant is serving an extended determinate sentence ('EDS') for robbery. The circumstances of the robbery will be discussed below. The sentence was imposed on 8 January 2016. It comprises a custodial term of 7 years and a licence extension period of 3 years, making a total of 10 years. It will expire on 4 August 2026.

[3]The Applicant was automatically released on licence on 28 September 2020 but his licence was revoked on 12 November 2021 in circumstances which will again be discussed below. He remained unlawfully at large until 16 June 2022 when he was arrested and returned to prison.

[4]Following the Applicant's return to prison his case was referred to the Board by the Secretary of State for Justice ('the Respondent') to decide whether he should be re-released on licence. In August 2023 after an oral hearing a panel of the Board decided not to direct his re-release.

[5]On 24 July 2024 the Respondent referred the Applicant's case to the Board for an annual review. The case was considered by a panel of the Board at an oral hearing in September 2025. The panel decided not to direct the Applicant's re-release on licence.

[6]An application has been made by the Applicant's solicitors 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 an EDS.

[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 the grounds of irrationality and procedural unfairness. It was made within the time limit for such applications and is 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 contains 263 numbered pages and includes a copy of the panel's decision);

(b) the solicitors' 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 aged 51. He has a long history of serious offending. In March 2003 he received a total sentence of 8 years imprisonment for three robberies, an offence of kidnapping and one of blackmail. He was on licence for those offences when, in September 2008, he received a total sentence of 12 years for three robberies and two offences of kidnapping. He was on licence from that sentence when he committed the robbery for which he is serving the EDS. That offence was committed with another man one evening in July 2015 at a petrol station where they robbed the cashier of £200 from the till.

[14]His recall to prison in November 2021, after more than a year on licence, was the result of an allegation that he and one or two others had committed an offence of kidnapping. It was alleged that they had stopped the victim's car and held a knife to his throat, and that he was then driven around and made to withdraw money from cashpoints. It was also alleged that some items were stolen from his car.

[15]As noted above, after his licence was revoked he remained unlawfully at large before being arrested and returned to prison. When he was arrested two knives fell out of his pockets. He said he had been carrying them for his and his partner's protection. He received a 6 month sentence for that offence.

[16]Back in prison he has attracted a significant number of negative entries in prison reports, but he denied all of those and none of them resulted in proved adjudications.

[17]One of them did however result in a criminal prosecution. This was an allegation that he had been in possession of a bladed instrument (a makeshift knife) in prison and a member of staff was said to have picked it up. The allegation was referred to the police and the Applicant was charged with possessing the knife but he was acquitted by the magistrates in the circumstances described below. There is a rather curious discrepancy as to the date of the incident in question: the panel stated it to be 2 April 2024 but the prison and court records stated it to be 4 February 2024.

[18]The oral hearing of the case took place on 30 September 2025. It was conducted by video link. The panel which conducted it comprised a psychologist member who chaired the proceedings and an independent member. The Applicant was legally represented. Before the hearing the panel had studied the dossier of papers provided by the Respondent, which at that stage ran to page 238. Oral evidence was given by the Applicant himself, his prison offender manager ('POM') and his community offender manager ('COM').

[19]During the hearing the panel viewed the CCTV recording of the incident of February (or April) 2024.

[20]The Applicant was seeking a direction for release on licence. The COM supported that request but the POM did not.

[21]On 6 October 2025 the panel issued their decision declining to direct release on licence.

[22]On 25 October 2025 the Applicant's solicitors submitted the application for reconsideration of the panel's decision. The Relevant Law The test for release on licence

[23]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

[24]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.

[25]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 the grounds of irrationality and procedural unfairness.

[26]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) 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)). The definition of irrationality

[27]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.

[28]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.

[29]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) .

[30]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.

[31]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.

[32]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

[33]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.

[34]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; or

(b) the party was not given a fair hearing; 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.

[35]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

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

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

[38]It is, I think, convenient to begin by discussing the allegation that the Applicant had been in possession of a knife in prison. The panel made a finding that that allegation was true. If that finding was justified, it would afford a strong ground for upholding the panel's decision: if it was not justified, it would afford a strong ground for a finding of procedural unfairness and a consequent upholding of the application for reconsideration.

[39]It is important to note that in parole proceedings, which are treated as civil proceedings as opposed to criminal proceedings, an allegation can be proved on the balance of probabilities (as opposed to the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt). In accordance with that principle the panel made their finding on the balance of probabilities, i.e. they considered that the allegation about the knife incident was more likely than not to be true. To decide whether their finding was justified I need to examine the evidence concerning the incident in question.

[40]The first document relating to the incident is a report dated 4 February 2024 submitted by a member of staff to a Governor. It read:

"04/02/24 Adjourned for police Incident statement Governor, at approximately 15:05, on the 04/02/24, I did witness on CCTV of an incident that happened at approximately 14:47, on the 04/02/24, [the Applicant] was seen dropping a item from his pocket onto the floor of Foxtrot twos landing, An improvised weapon was seized for evidence of this same item been from Officer [name] and seized in evidence bag number [number stated]. Next court appearance 27/06/24 ."

[41]This report was referred to in the COM's report of 2 July 2024. It would appear that the last line of the report must have been added after the event.

[42]In representations dated 25 August 2024 (seeking an oral hearing) the Applicant's solicitors stated:

"We can also confirm with the Parole Board that the outstanding court matter has been dealt with. [The Applicant] was due to appear before [the magistrates' court] on 12 July 2024. Through no fault of [the Applicant], he was not produced to court. However, the prosecution witness who was due to attend court for the trial failed to do so also. The court refused to adjourn the matter and ultimately it was the decision of CPS to offer no evidence to the court. The Magistrates therefore dismissed the matter against [the Applicant] and found him 'not guilty'. This matter has therefore concluded. [The Applicant] continues to deny that the knife was in his possession or that it belonged to him. It is highly likely that this is considered directly linked to the presented risk of serious harm, and as such [the Applicant] should be given an opportunity to answer the Parole Board's questions if it is relevant to risk, and provide his explanation directly to the Panel rather than the Panel accepting the version of events as they are in the written evidence."

[43]On 23 September 2024 a Member Case Assessment (MCA) member adjourned the case as the recall incident was still being investigated. Her directions included one that the CCTV recording of the 'knife incident' should be provided by 28 October 2024.

[44]In further representations dated 5 November 2024 the Applicant's solicitors submitted:

"In relation to the allegation that [the Applicant] had an improvised weapon/knife on his person in February 2024 at [the prison], we can confirm that this matter has been properly dealt with by the court, and [the Applicant] was found not guilty. The matter was listed for trial in July 2024, neither prosecution witnesses showed to court (both a prison officer and prisoner), and although the prosecution sought to proceed with the trial, we are now informed that the court ruled the evidence was insufficient and found [the Applicant] not guilty of the offence. "[The Applicant] continues to deny that he had a knife or improvised weapon on him, or that it fell from his pocket. [He] has seen the CCTV footage from the prison and instructs that it does not show anything falling from his pocket. Despite directions made at the time of this case being adjourned by the MCA member, this CCTV has not been provided to us..."

[45]Added to the dossier was the document issued by the magistrates' court confirming that the case was dismissed.

[46]In further MCA directions dated 12 November 2024 the MCA member directed that there should be an oral hearing and directed again that the CCTV of the 'knife incident' should be provided, this time by 9 December 2024.

[47]In panel chair directions dated 5 August 2025 it was stated that the CCTV had been provided.

[48]At the start of their decision the panel recorded the following:

"During the course of the oral hearing, evidence came to light that a photograph existed which related to an allegation that [the Applicant] had been in possession of a weapon in April 2024, whilst in custody. Neither the panel nor [the Applicant's legal representative] had had sight of the photograph, although had seen the CCTV coverage of the relevant incident ."

[49]In her closing representations the legal representative stated:

" [The Applicant] knows that the panel will be concerned over weapon carrying and that has historically been an issue for [the Applicant]. However, we know there has been no evidence of weapon carrying since February 2024, over 18 months, and even on that occasion [he] disputes that it was a weapon which fell out of his pocket. [He] accepts that a weapon was present during an altercation between two other prisoners, which he had removed/persuaded the other prisoners to put down. [He] denies being in possession of a weapon and maintains that it was a vape which fell from his pocket."

[50]In their decision the panel stated:

"Of particular concern to the panel was a report that [the Applicant] had been seen on CCTV allegedly in possession of a weapon which fell from his pocket on 2 April 2024. The panel had had sight of the CCTV footage and considered this carefully alongside a photograph which was provided to the panel during the course of the oral hearing. The POM confirmed to the panel that a custodial officer had picked up the item that had fallen from [the Applicant's] pocket on 2 April 2024 (as seen on the CCTV) and then a photograph had been taken of the item. The photograph is of a bladed article. When this was addressed with [the Applicant] during his oral evidence, he denied that this was the item that had dropped from his pocket, despite the evidence from CCTV that an item did fall out from his pocket or was dropped from his pocket. "[The Applicant's] account to the panel was that he had entered another prisoner's cell where two prisoners were arguing. He reported that both of them had weapons, and he persuaded them to discard them. He said he then left the cell and then misplaced his vape, stating he must have dropped it from his pocket. He denied going anywhere near where the bladed article was found. He read out a statement from another prisoner which stated that he and another prisoner had been arguing. The statement reported that [the Applicant] had intervened and removed their weapons. The prisoner stated that [the Applicant] had been dragged into the incident and that it was not fair that he had been charged with an offence... "...the panel concluded that it was relevant to its risk assessment. The panel was provided with evidence in relation to the incident including CCTV footage and a photograph of a bladed article; the panel was informed by the POM in oral evidence that the photograph is of the item that can be seen falling from [the Applicant's] pocket which was subsequently picked up by a member of custodial staff and removed. [The Applicant] denied that he had dropped this item, but the panel's observation of the CCTV footage was that this item remained on the landing floor after it had dropped from [the Applicant's] pocket. The panel did not have the benefit of being able to test this evidence by speaking to the other individuals concerned. However, [the Applicant] was given a fair opportunity to address the allegation in the oral hearing. Within the evidence available to the panel, including that of [the Applicant] , the panel was confident on the balance of probabilities that [he] had had a knife in his possession on 2 April 2024 which he had dropped (deliberately or otherwise) on the wing landing. The panel's findings affected its decision in that they formed part of the panel's assessment of risk and the manageability of that risk in the community . "

[51]In the legal representative's reconsideration representations she states:

"The Applicant picks issue with the continuity of evidence regarding the allegation of possessing a knife in custody (April 2024). Whilst this incident was captured on CCTV, the Applicant continues to dispute that the item which fell from his person was a knife and denies that he had a knife in his possession. Whilst the Panel considered that the Parole Board should enquire into the circumstances of allegations and obtain all evidence available, of note is that there were no attempts to obtain the CPS papers from the court appearance, nor were the reasons from the dismissal at course [sic] obtained and the issue of continuity of evidence, for the purpose of Parole Board proceedings, was therefore uncertain. There was no statement obtained or disclosed from the officer who claims to have recovered the item in the CCTV, and there is no proof (in the context of the law of evidence) that the item recovered by the officer referred to by the POM was in fact a knife. The evidence provided by the POM in the hearing was hearsay too far removed from the incident and therefore cannot be weighted in evidence and yet this Panel placed significant weight on that evidence. It would hold no evidential weight in court and it should not for the purpose of these proceedings either, particularly given the weight that was placed upon it. "

The Panel make reference in their decision letter that they didn't have the benefit hearing from any other witness; however the Panel failed to potentially explore hearing evidence from the officer who claims to have recovered the item seen on CCTV and no attempts were made to call that officer as a witness for proceedings. We simply do not know whether the knife photographed and sent during the course of the hearing was in fact the same item which was dropped on the CCTV and yet the Panel have placed significant weight on that to such a degree where they state 'the panel's findings affected its decision in that they formed part of the panel's assessment of risk and the manageability of that risk in the community.' "In our submission, this is the first error made by the Panel under this application."

[52]I agree that the evidence was incomplete, and specifically that no statement was obtained from the officer who apparently recovered the item from the floor of the landing. It would have been preferable if either the Secretary of State had obtained a statement from the officer in question and presented it as part of his case or the panel had directed such a statement or the attendance of that officer at the hearing. I have given anxious consideration to this point, but at the end of the day I am not persuaded that that omission was fatal to the panel's decision.

[53]There was certainly insufficient evidence to establish to the criminal standard of proof that the Applicant had a makeshift weapon in his possession on the day in question. However I am satisfied, as was the panel, that it is significantly more likely than not that that was the case.

[54]The Applicant's own evidence and that of the other prisoner shows that at least one weapon was present when the Applicant went into the other prisoner's cell, and the Applicant took it from him. It is agreed that having left the cell the Applicant dropped something on the landing. The Applicant says that it was a vape. However the strong likelihood is that it was the makeshift weapon which he had taken from the other prisoner and which was seized by a member of staff before being placed in an evidence bag and later shown in the photograph belatedly shown to the panel. The wording of the other prisoner's statement actually supports the view that the Applicant got into trouble because he was seen to be in possession of the makeshift weapon. It may well be the case that having taken the weapon he was going to get rid of it rather than to keep it for himself.

[55]It follows from the above that I cannot accept the ground of procedural unfairness advanced by the Applicant's legal representative.

[56]I can turn now to the ground of irrationality. The legal representative makes the following representations. "It is the Applicant's position that this decision is irrational as there has not been due consideration given to other factors that can demonstrate a reduction in risk namely, his more positive prison conduct, which the Applicant considers was not properly or fairly reflected in the decision letter nor was appropriate measure placed on it during the course of the oral hearing. "The Applicant also considers that a disproportionate amount of weight was placed on the evidence provided by the POM who had spent less time with [the Applicant], despite his placement within the prison, and placed considerably more evidence on his evaluation of risk; the Applicant considers this to be irrational when compared to the evidence which was provided by the COM who was able to provide a more comprehensive explanation as to why it was felt risk was manageable in the community, as well as evidence regarding visible warning signs of risk escalation should that occur within the community."

[57]I have carefully studied the panel's decision and I am satisfied that they took properly into account all the factors favourable to the Applicant as well as those unfavourable to him. I am also satisfied that that their approach to the evidence of the POM and the COM was fully justified. This was not an easy case and it was one in which views could and did reasonably differ. This is demonstrated by the very careful analysis of the evidence carried out by the panel. It is worth setting out that analysis in full.

[58]The panel set out probation's statistical assessments of the likelihood of the Applicant committing further offences as follows:

"The most recent OASys report shows that [the Applicant] is assessed (based on various static risk factors such as his age when he was first convicted, the number of convictions and his current age) by OGRS3 as falling within the low band of risk. When dynamic risk factors are included, his OGP score indicates that he falls within the medium band for risk of general non-violent offending and his OVP score indicates that he falls within the medium band for risk of violent reoffending. The Risk of Serious Recidivism (RSR) tool, which is used to assess how likely an individual is to commit a seriously harmful offence within a two-year period, assesses [the Applicant] as being in the medium range. Given the history of his offending, his identified risk factors, his custodial behaviour and engagement in interventions, the panel considered that these risk assessments are an accurate assessment of the level of risk he currently poses."

[59]The panel then set out probation's clinical assessments of the Applicant's risk of serious harm to various categories of people if he should re-offend. These were as follows:

"[The Applicant] is assessed using OASys based on a range of factors as posing a high risk of serious harm to members of the public, a medium risk of serious harm to children and to a known adult, and a low risk of serious harm to staff in the community. The panel considered that these were fair and robust assessments of the nature and degree of the risk presented by [the Applicant], given the circumstances of his index offence, the combination of his risk factors, and the evidence given at the hearing."

[60]The panel continued:

"In his evidence to the panel, the POM asserted that in his view there would not be warning signs that risk is increasing in the community. He took account of the evidence [the Applicant] appeared to be doing well in the community before his recall on the allegation of kidnapping. He expressed concerns about his admission of carrying weapons for his own defence in the community due to threats from negative peers and his lack of transparency with his supervising officer at the time. The POM considered that the most likely reason for [the Applicant] to destabilise in the community would be a relapse into drug misuse. The POM expressed concerns about the imminency of risk towards the alleged victim of the kidnapping allegation if [the Applicant] was released pending the outcome of the police investigation. He expressed concerns that [he] may seek out the alleged victim and that if [he] was in possession of a weapon, this could lead to serious harm being caused. He did not consider that imminence of serious harm to the public was high. "

The COM disagreed with the POM's assessment. Whilst she acknowledged that there had been a lack of warning signs prior to the circumstances of the alleged offence of kidnapping, she assessed the imminency of risk as medium. She told the panel that there was no current or recent evidence that [the Applicant] was at risk of harm from any individuals in the community nor did she have concerns about any malicious intent on [his] behalf to seek out the victim of the alleged offence of kidnapping. In her view, a relapse into drug use was the most likely trigger for further offending because it has led to the commission of several robbery offences in the past. "It was against these matters, in combination with [the Applicant's] risk factors and the evidence available to the panel both in writing and in oral evidence, that the panel evaluated the plans proposed to manage his risks in the community. "If released, it was proposed that [the Applicant] reside in approved premises (AP) to provide enhanced support and monitoring; he has been accepted as suitable for a bed space. He would be expected to remain there for approximately three months. [He] has recently expressed a willingness to comply with this. Upon completion of the AP, [he] has expressed a preference to reside with his mother, his sister and her child. The COM confirmed that relevant safeguarding checks would need to be made before approval could be given. Children's Services would be engaged in [the Applicant's] case with regard to him having any contact with his children. "Whilst on licence, [the Applicant] would be expected to engage in weekly supervision until such time that his risk is assessed as reduced and at which time the frequency of reporting may be reviewed. The COM would monitor his compliance with supervision and licence conditions and support his general wellbeing. The COM would conduct any necessary one-to-one offence focused work and request intelligence to monitor the risk of serious harm to the public. "Several licence conditions were proposed including trail monitoring, disclosure of relationships, a curfew (which would be reviewed on a monthly basis), and notification of any vehicle ownership or usage. [The Applicant] would not be able to contact the female co-defendant of the index offence or her daughter. In response to questions from the panel, the COM agreed that a condition not to approach the alleged victim of the kidnapping offence would be appropriate as would a condition preventing [the Applicant] from owning or being in possession of a knife. [He] told the panel that he had no problems with the proposed licence conditions and was willing to abide by all of them. "The panel considered the proposed risk management plan to be proportionate to [the Applicant's] risks and necessary to protect the public from harm. However, given his poor compliance history in the community and in custody, the panel struggled to find compelling evidence that he would be motivated to fully engage with supervision requirements and had concerns about the robustness of this risk management plan in the absence of any compelling evidence that he has the motivation and capacity to fully engage and comply with the proposed plan. "The POM did not support [the Applicant's] release on licence. He referred to his concerns about weapon possession or use both in the community and within the custodial environment. He expressed concerns about whether there is evidence of the habitual carrying of weapons although acknowledged that there had been no concerns since April 2024. Set against this, he referred to [the Applicant's] positive engagement with substance misuse in custody and his stated intention to remain abstinent from drugs in the community. He expressed doubts about [the Applicant's] capacity to comply with licence conditions. He summarised his view as follows, 'I think he will genuinely try but I think things will go downhill'. "[The Applicant's] release was supported by the COM. It was her view that [he] currently presents as positive and highly motivated to address his risk factors of drug use, negative associates and lack of financial stability. It was her opinion that [he] is able to acknowledge the detrimental impact on any progress and his long-term goals, should he continue to choose to maintain his previous lifestyle. She acknowledged the concerns about weapons and poor compliance in custody. However, she opined that his custodial engagement indicates that overall, due to the many positive entries in respect of [the Applicant's] conduct, which includes his consistent engagement with drug treatment and education, he has made sufficient improvement in addressing his risks such that they can be safely managed in the community. "[The Applicant] told the panel with regard to the manageability of his risk in the community, 'I am a lot older and I am more settled in myself. I want to live a normal life and take care of my family. I have lived in institutions all my life and I don't want it anymore'. "The panel identified several protective factors in [the Applicant's] case. He has a supportive and prosocial family. He has a strong work ethic, and he is currently abstinent from illegal substances. However, the panel considered that [he] will need to work on developing protective factors in the future. Such factors could include addressing his attitudes towards the possession of weapons, increasing his understanding of the need to be open and transparent with professionals and developing his insight into his risk factors. Conclusion "The panel considered all the evidence available to it and was assisted by the helpful written submissions made by [the Applicant's legal representative] following the conclusion of the oral hearing. It was confirmed that [the Applicant's] application was for release. It was submitted that there was insufficient information within the dossier for a finding of fact to be made on the allegation of kidnapping and it was noted that the police investigation has been ongoing for over four years with no indication that an outcome is imminent. The panel was asked to accept that [the Applicant] does not pose a risk to the alleged victim, although a non-contact condition was not opposed. It was submitted that [the Applicant] disputes having a knife on his person in prison and maintains that it was a vape that fell from his pocket. It was submitted that as no evidence was offered at Court, [the Applicant] should be treated as not guilty. It was accepted that [he] was in possession of knives in the community when arrested whilst UAL; set against this, the panel was asked to accept his assertion that he does not intend to carry weapons in the future and that he has insight into his risks. "[The legal representative] asked the panel to note that [his] custodial behaviour has shown improvement and that there is a significant reduction in negative behaviour reports. It was acknowledged that the security reports merit consideration, but it was submitted that none of the information is proven and that limited weight should be placed on the security entries. Instead, the panel was asked to place weight on the previous psychological assessment that there is no outstanding core risk reduction work and that [the Applicant's] risks and warning signs are well understood. It was submitted that the risk management plan was robust enough to safely manage [his] risks and that he was willing to comply with that plan. The panel was asked to direct [his] release on the basis that he meets the codified test for release and that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that he remains confined... "In determining whether [the Applicant] meets the test for release, the panel took account of the serious nature of the index offence and the history of his offending. The panel also took account of the circumstances of [the] recall, which was linked to an allegation of further offending, and his custodial conduct since recall, as well as the proposed risk management plan. "The circumstances of [the Applicant's] recall raised significant concerns for the current panel, as they had done for the previous panel that reviewed his case in August 2023. Given the outstanding nature of the police investigation, and the limited information available, the current panel attached no weight to the allegation of kidnapping in making its decision. However, set against this was the clear evidence and acceptance by [the Applicant] that he had carried a knife on his person, that he had remained UAL for a considerable period, and that he had not been open and transparent with those professionals tasked with assessing and managing his risk in the community. Those concerns raised serious doubts in the panel's mind about [his] likelihood of compliance in the community whilst on licence. "Both professional witnesses gave comprehensive evidence to the panel in the hearing. They both agreed that there were concerns about [the Applicant's] custodial behaviour which reflected some of the issues that had led to recall, and which had arisen at the point of arrest. The panel heard evidence from the POM that raised significant concerns about [his] custodial behaviour. The POM gave detailed evidence of several matters relating to suspected drug misuse and involvement in the prison drug culture, as well as incidents of non-compliance leading to numerous negative behaviour reports. Set against this was the evidence of a number of negative drugs tests in recent months and the positive behaviour reports recorded against [the Applicant] in the months leading up to the oral hearing. On balance, the panel found evidence of both positive and negative behaviour in [the Applicant's] response to the prison regime, which suggested that his ability and motivation to lead a pro-social life in the custodial setting was somewhat lacking and supported the conclusion that there has not been a significant shift in his attitudes and beliefs regarding compliance. "Of particular concern to the panel was a report that [the Applicant] had been seen on CCTV allegedly in possession of a weapon which fell out of his pocket on 2 April 2024. This matter had been referred to the police. [The Applicant] had pleaded not guilty to the offence, and the matter had been dismissed at [the] Magistrates' Court. Nevertheless, the panel considered that it had a duty to apply the Parole Board Guidance on Allegations, and it did so. Within the evidence available to the panel, including that of [the Applicant], the panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that [he] had had a knife in his possession on 2 April 2024 which he had dropped (deliberately or otherwise) on the wing landing. The panel's findings affected its decision in that they formed part of the panel's assessment of risk and the manageability of that risk in the community. "The panel had to consider differing views expressed by the professionals as to [the Applicant's] suitability for release. On balance, the panel preferred the view of the POM and attached more weight to his evidence. The panel did not find that[the Applicant] has evidenced that he has sufficient insight into his risks nor has he developed robust enough strategies for managing those risks in the community, given his decision to carry weapons in the community, his decision to remain UAL for a considerable period and his lack of transparency with his supervising officer. Furthermore, the panel concluded that, on balance, his custodial behaviour suggests that further consolidation of the skills learned in previous interventions is necessary. The panel concluded that [he] has not sufficiently addressed all of his risk factors, particularly relating to attitudes towards violence and weapons, and concluded that the risk to the public cannot be safely managed until he engages in further consolidation work within the custodial setting. "A direction for release must not be made, unless the panel considers that there is no more than a minimal risk of the prisoner committing a further offence which would cause serious harm, should they be released. Taking account of [the Applicant's] offending history, the circumstances of his recall, the likelihood of him committing a further offence capable of causing serious harm, and his likely compliance in the community, the panel was not satisfied there has been a significant reduction in risk, such that he presents a minimal risk of serious harm if released under the proposed plan. In summary, the panel applied the codified public protection test in [the Applicant's] case and concluded that at this time he would pose more than a minimal risk to the public if released. Therefore, the panel made no direction for release."

[61]It is to be noted that the panel indicated that their conclusion was reached 'on balance'. Other panels might have reached a different conclusion. However, I have reminded myself of the Wednesbury test for irrationality and I am satisfied that that test is not met and I cannot make a finding of irrationality in this case. Decision

[62]I am grateful to the legal representative for her very clear representations but I am afraid I cannot direct reconsideration of the panel's decision in this case. I hope and trust that he will succeed in a law-abiding life in the future. Jeremy Roberts 28 November 2025