Doumbia, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 273 (10 December 2025) [2025] PBRA 273
[1]This is an application by Doumbia (the applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of the Parole Board at an oral hearing before a single person Panel dated the 27 October 2025 not to direct release.[2]Rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended by the Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2024) (the Parole Board Rules) provides that applications for reconsideration may be made in eligible cases (as set out in rule 28(2)) either on the basis(a) that the decision contains an error of law,(b) that it is irrational and/or(c) that it is procedurally unfair. This is an eligible case.[3]I have considered the application on the papers. These are the dossier (including the decision letter) of 282 pages as well as the application which consists of 8 pages. This is undated, other than saying that they were written in November 2025, but it is not suggested that the application was not submitted in time.[4]In addition, the Panel had access to the Sentencing Remarks for the recall allegation, although these had not been added to the dossier. For that reason, I obtained this document as well. Request for Reconsideration[5]The grounds for seeking a reconsideration are not set out clearly, but it is said that the ground for reconsideration is irrationality (page 7).[6]The application is set out in a narrative form, but the complaints appear to be summarised as follows: i. The evidence of the prison supervisor 'points clearly' towards release. ii. The evidence of the community probation officer 'demonstrates' that the applicant's risk is reduced, and that any future increase would be 'predictable and capable of swift intervention'. iii. The applicant had previously engaged well whilst in the community, which evidenced a motivation to do so again. iv. The applicant had dealt well with a number of difficulties that had arisen in the community, which was a predictor of future behaviour. v. The applicant has shown good behaviour in custody, but there was insufficient account given of this. vi. The conclusion of the Panel that the assessment of risk in the 'OASys' (a probation tool) did not fully assess his risk 'lack[ed] a rational foundation'. vii. The conclusion of the Panel that the proposed release plan would not be sufficient to manage his risk in the community also 'lack[ed] a rational foundation'. viii. The Panel did not take account of the full circumstances of the further offences committed by the applicant in the community.[7]At its heart, the complaint appears to be that both professional witnesses were recommending release and, in failing to follow that recommendation, the Panel fell into error. Background[8]The applicant was convicted of two counts of rape and three of aiding and abetting rape. In addition, he subsequently received a further determinate sentence for conspiracy to rob (a planned cash in transit robbery that occurred whilst he was on bail for the rape offences).[9]In brief, he and two others had restrained a 13 year old girl and taken turn to rape her. She was threatened with a knife during the incident.[10]The applicant was a young man at the time, aged only 17 when he was sentenced. Unfortunately the sentencing remarks were not retained, but he received an extended sentence of 21 years (consisting of a 15 year custodial period and a 6 year extended licence period).[11]By passing an extended sentence, the Judge would have had to conclude that the applicant posed a significant risk of serious harm. There is no suggestion that this sentence was appealed. It was clearly an extremely lengthy sentence, especially given his age at the time, which indicates the seriousness of the offending.[12]The applicant was released in August 2021 after an oral hearing of the Parole Board that concluded that his risk was manageable in the community. Current parole review[13]The applicant is now an adult in his thirties. He remained in the community for over three years, until October 2024.[14]Although he had appeared to engage well in the community, he was recalled after he was arrested for further offending.[15]In due course he pleaded guilty to the following offences: · Possession with intent to supply Class A drugs · Possession with intent to supply Class B drugs · Having a bladed article (a lock knife)[16]He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to two years imprisonment. There were other charges, but these were not proceeded with.[17]Since being returned to custody there have been some difficulties with his behaviour, including an adjudication for assaulting another prisoner a month before the hearing. He had not undertaken any accredited risk reduction work since his recall.[18]An oral hearing was directed, which was conducted remotely on 23 October 2025. The Panel heard evidence from the applicant, prison officer and community probation officer. Both witnesses recommended release. The Relevant Law[19]The Panel correctly sets out in its decision letter dated 27 October 2025 the test for release. Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)[20]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)).[21]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[22]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.[23]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. "[24]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).[25]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.[26]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.[27]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.[28]Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. That means that, even if an error of law, irrationality, or procedural unfairness is established, the Reconsideration Member considering the case is not obliged to direct reconsideration of the panel's decision. The Reconsideration Member can decline to make such a direction having taken into account the particular circumstances of the case, the potential for a different decision to be reached by a new panel, and any delay caused by a grant of reconsideration. That discretion must of course be exercised in a way which is fair to both parties. The reply on behalf of the Secretary of State (the Respondent)[29]The Respondent has stated on 26 November 2025 that he does not wish to make any representations. Discussion[30]As noted, the decision letter set out the test to be applied. The Panel also set out a summary of the oral evidence. It is not suggested that that was inaccurate or one-sided.[31]From the decision letter it is clear that the Panel were aware of the points in the evidence raised by the applicant in the reconsideration application.[32]The Panel set out (para 2.44) its reasons for considering that the OASys assessment underestimated the risk that the applicant presented. These were clear and drew on the circumstances of the recall and events since then. It cannot be said to be irrational.[33]In the next section, at para 3.5, the Panel considered the release plan and gave reasons for the conclusion that this would not be sufficient to manage his risk.[34]I do not agree that that conclusion 'lacks foundation'. The Decision Letter noted the proposed plan and identified a gap, which it considered to be significant, in relation to the initial monitoring (or lack of it). There were further issues raised as to whether he would be fully open with the professionals.[35]The conclusion about the release plan followed logically from the evidence and the Panel gave clear reasons for its conclusion. This conclusion differed from the views of the professionals, but it is trite to say that a Panel is entitled to do so, provided that reasons are given.[36]In this case, the reasoning is set out and is, in my view, sufficient to explain to the applicant the reason for the conclusion that the Panel reached.[37]The bulk of the Panel's reasoning is in Section 4. Again, the recommendations of the professionals are acknowledged, but reasons are given as to why the Panel did not agree with them.[38]Whilst the applicant had shown a good period of engagement in the community, this was followed by him committing further offences, which meant that the prior positive engagement would inevitably carry less weight.[39]It is said in the application that the applicant had engaged well since recall. However, as noted above, there had been several instances of violence in custody (with one being in the month before the hearing) which undermined the contentions of the applicant, and the impact of the positive engagement and work undertaken since recall.[40]Ultimately, the Panel had to carry out a balancing exercise of all the factors in the applicant's case. That is what it did. It came to a different conclusion to the professionals. It may be that different Panels might also have come to a different conclusion, but that does not make this decision irrational.[41]The applicant committed extremely serious offences whilst a young man. Whilst he had done well in the community, he committed further offences that involved the supply of Class A drugs as well as carrying a knife.[42]The Panel was aware that the applicant was sentenced on the basis that he was a courier. However, the Panel remained concerned by the recall offences, which is understandable.[43]Further, there had been difficulties with his behaviour (including violence) since recall.[44]Against that background, it is impossible to say that a decision not to direct release was not one that was reasonably open to the Panel, even when bearing in mind the heightened level of scrutiny applicable to cases where a person's liberty is at stake and the contrary recommendations of the professionals.[45]The letter, read as a whole, gives sufficient reasons to explain why the Panel reached its conclusion which differed to those of the professionals. Decision[46]For the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the decision was irrational, and accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused. Daniel Bunting 10 December 2025