Uddin, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 272 (10 December 2025) [2025] PBRA 272
[1]This is an application by Uddin (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of an oral hearing panel dated 31 October 2025 not to direct his release.[2]Rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended by the Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2024) (the Parole Board Rules) provides that applications for reconsideration may be made in eligible cases (as set out in rule 28(2)) either on the basis(a) that the decision contains an error of law,(b) that it is irrational and/or(c) that it is procedurally unfair. This is an eligible case, and the application was made in time.[3]I have considered the application on the papers. These are the oral hearing decision, the dossier consisting of 370 pages and the application for reconsideration. Request for Reconsideration[4]The application for reconsideration is dated 17 November 2025. It has been drafted by legal representatives on behalf of the Applicant. It submits that the decision is irrational and procedurally unfair.[5]The submission is supplemented by written arguments to which reference will be made in the discussion section below. Background[6]The Applicant received an extended sentence of 22 years made up of 19 years custody and an extended licence of 3 years for offences of rape and sexual activity with a female child under the age of 16.[7]The Applicant was 26 years old at the time of sentencing and is now 38 years old. Current parole review[8]The Applicant's case was referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State (the Respondent) in November 2024 to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to direct his release.[9]The case proceeded to an oral hearing via videoconference on 17 October 2025. The panel consisted of three independent members. It heard oral evidence from the Applicant, together with his Prison Offender Manager (POM), his Community Offender Manager (COM) and a Forensic Psychologist. The Applicant was legally represented by an advocate. 10.The panel did not direct the Applicant's release. The Relevant Law[11]The panel correctly sets out in its decision letter dated 31 October 2025 the test for release. Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)[12]Rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules provides the types of decision which are eligible for reconsideration. Decisions concerning whether the prisoner is or is not suitable for release on licence are eligible for reconsideration whether made by a paper panel (rule 19(1)(a) or (b)) or by an oral hearing panel after an oral hearing (rule 25(1)) or by an oral hearing panel which makes the decision on the papers (rule 21(7)). Decisions concerning the termination, amendment, or dismissal of an IPP licence are also eligible for reconsideration (rule 31(6) or rule 31(6A)).[13][Rule 28(2) of the Parole Board Rules provides the sentence types which are eligible for reconsideration. These are indeterminate sentences (rule 28(2)(a)), extended sentences (rule 28(2)(b)), certain types of determinate sentence subject to initial release by the Parole Board (rule 28(2)(c)) and serious terrorism sentences (rule 28(2)(d)).] Irrationality 14.The power of the courts to interfere with a decision of a competent tribunal on the ground of irrationality was defined in Associated Provincial Houses ltd -v- Wednesbury Corporation 1948 1 KB 223 by Lord Greene in these words " if a decision on a competent matter is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it, then the courts can interfere". The same test applies to a reconsideration panel when determining an application on the basis of irrationality. 15.In R(DSD and others) -v- the Parole Board 2018 EWHC 694 (Admin) a Divisional Court applied this test to Parole Board hearings in these words at para 116 "the issue is whether the release decision was so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it. " 16.In R(on the application of Wells) -v- Parole Board 2019 EWHC 2710 (Admin) set out what he described as a more nuanced approach in modern public law which was "to test the decision maker's ultimate conclusion against the evidence before it and to ask whether the conclusion can (with due deference and with regard to the panel's expertise) be safely justified on the basis of that evidence, particularly in a context where anxious scrutiny needs to be applied)". This test was adopted by a Divisional Court in the case of R(on the application of the Secretary of State for Justice) -v- the Parole Board 2022 EWHC 1282 (Admin). 17.As was made clear by Saini J this is not a different test to the Wednesbury test. The interpretation of and application of the Wednesbury test in Parole hearings as explained in DSD was binding on Saini J. 18.It follows from those principles that in considering an application for reconsideration the reconsideration panel will not substitute its view of the evidence for that of the panel who heard the witnesses. Further while the views of the professional witnesses must be properly considered by a panel deciding on release, the panel is not bound to accept their assessment. The panel must however make clear in its reasons why it is disagreeing with the assessment of the witnesses. Procedural unfairness Procedural unfairness means that there was some procedural impropriety or unfairness resulting in the proceedings being fundamentally flawed and therefore, producing a manifestly unfair, flawed, or unjust result. These issues (which focus on how the decision was made) are entirely separate to the issue of irrationality which focusses on the actual decision. In summary an Applicant seeking to complain of procedural unfairness under rule 28 must satisfy me that either:(a) express procedures laid down by law were not followed in the making of the relevant decision;(b) they were not given a fair hearing;(c) they were not properly informed of the case against them;(d) they were prevented from putting their case properly;(e) the panel did not properly record the reasons for any findings or conclusion; and/or(f) the panel was not impartial. The overriding objective is to ensure that the Applicant's case was dealt with justly. The reply on behalf of the Secretary of State 22.The Respondent has submitted no representations in response to this application. Discussion 23.The Applicant submits that the decision did not accurately reflect the evidence presented to the panel in that his custodial behaviour was not properly reflected, that there was no further work to complete in closed conditions, that the security intelligence had been maliciously made by others, that not granting release on the basis of contact with his brother was irrational and that the professional witnesses supported a transfer to open conditions. 24.Contrary to the claims in the application, the panel considered all the matters raised (the submissions in this application are set out in paragraphs 4.2 and 4.3 of the decision letter). The question of weight was a matter for the panel's consideration giving clear and valid reasons set out in the decision. 25.The fact that there is no more risk reduction work that the Applicant can do in custody does not mean that he must be released. The panel was not confident that, despite having completed such work, the Applicant possessed the internal controls to manage his risk or to demonstrate an understanding of his risk factors. 26.The application was incorrect in stating that the panel did not reference the claim of the POM that the majority of the security intelligence may have been maliciously made by other prisoners who wanted the Applicant's job. That was set out by the panel in paragraph 4 of the decision letter together with positive findings regarding his good custodial conduct. 27.The basis for not directing release was not because of contact with his brother but for the many other reasons set out in section 4 of the decision letter. The panel is not obliged to follow the conclusions of the professionals, it must make its own decision on the basis of the evidence presented. The panel did that in this case and for the sustainable reasons set out did not consider that the Applicant could be released. In addition, whilst the professionals recommended transfer to open conditions, as noted by the panel the Respondent's referral did not include a request for consideration of transfer to open conditions and in those circumstances, it was not something that the panel could consider. 28.The application does not identify any procedural unfairness and having had careful consideration to the decision I am unable to identify any procedural unfairness in the panel's consideration of the case. Decision 29.For the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the decision was irrational or procedurally unfair and accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused. Barbara Mensah 10 December 2025