‘None of the professionals giving evidence to the panel considered that your risk had reduced to a level where you could be safely managed under this risk management plan. They all considered that you need to make progress in risk reduction work first. Whether that work is to involve accredited programmes, or, as [an Independent Psychologist called at his request] put it, ‘intervention in respect of your personality functioning which directly relates to risk management’, their view was that the work needs to be done. The professionals are agreed that your risk is too high for you to be safely managed either in the community or in open conditions, and the plan is for you to remain in a closed prison where it is hoped you can engage in risk reduction work. ‘As noted previously, the view of psychologists, offender supervisor and offender manager is that you do not require conditions of high security, and many more options for appropriate interventions could be available to you outside Category A. ‘Although not in open conditions. It is not necessary for you to abandon your stance of innocence, but you would need to focus on meaningful risk reduction, which requires that you develop trust and better relationships with professionals. That could be achieved in your present location.’
“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 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 .”
“ 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 ”
‘The panel considered all of the evidence and information before them. It had regard to the written submissions of [the Applicant] and [the Respondent’s] legal representative. ‘The panel had regard to the seriousness of the index offending and the prior pattern of criminal offending. [The Respondent] at the time of the index murders was a career criminal. It accepted the submission of [the Applicant] that [the Respondent] had shown himself to be a sophisticated offender with a propensity to commit violence (or organise violence) of the utmost severity and that the index offences were particularly grievous involving numerous victims who were lured to a remote farmhouse by [the Respondent] indicating a predatory motivation linked to drug dealing and money. The severe impact on the victims’ families is well documented. ‘Nonetheless the panel had to consider whether [the Respondent’s] risk was now sufficiently reduced after so many years in custody to allow safe release into the community. The panel was mindful throughout of the statutory test for release with its emphasis on the protection of the public. ‘The panel was mindful that no risk reduction work has been completed by [the Respondent] but noted that the only work now being suggested as necessary to be completed in custody was OPD [Offender Personality Disorder] work or like psychology work to address [the Respondent’s] personality traits. ‘The panel considered that a [Personality Disorder] diagnosis could be relevant to the decision it had to make on release, only if it was demonstrated to have a direct link to his current risk of serious harm, as distinct from his index offending. The panel accepted that [the Respondent’s] personality traits did have a link to his index offending but accepted [Dr C’s] assessment that these traits were not linked to his current risk. The panel was mindful of her experience in this field identified by [the Respondent’s solicitor]. ‘The panel accepted that [the Respondent] may well be problematic to manage but considered that [the Risk Management Plan discussed earlier in the decision] was well able to manage that risk. [The Respondent] may well lack full insight into his risks but the panel did not consider that this was a bar to his being managed under this plan. He is now 82 years of age and is well aware of the consequences if he were to attempt to return to a criminal lifestyle which is the key risk scenario in this case. The panel considered he would be motivated to comply and to engage with professionals if only because he patently has no wish to return to prison but in any event any non-compliance would in the panel’s view be identified well before risk was elevated to a level incompatible with public protection. ‘The panel accepted [Dr C’s] assessment that [the Respondent’s] current risk of physical violence in the community was low. There had been no evidence of immediate risks in custody in recent years and no evidence of grievance thinking in recent years. He has been engaging with the professionals. ‘The panel concluded that [the Respondent’s] risk was manageable in the community under the [Risk Management Plan]. ‘The panel accordingly concluded that it was no longer necessary for the protection of the public that [the Respondent] remain confined.’
‘[Ms U] did not recommend release. [She] shared the view of [the prison psychologist in 2021] that personality traits appear to have been a factor in offending and are relevant to future risk. She identified an overall problem with insight as being present and highly relevant to future violent risk. She considered that [the Respondent] should be referred to the OPD pathway or undertake some specific psychological work relating to developing his understanding of his problematic personality traits. ‘[Dr C] recommended release. She assessed [the Respondent] as posing a low risk of physical violence if he were in the community. She considered that any personality traits were moderate and had been aggravated by [the Respondent’s] time in high security and would be ameliorated by release into the community. She did not consider any OPD pathway work was necessary or that [the Respondent] required or would benefit from any specific psychological intervention.’
‘ The panel accepted [the Respondent’s] own evidence on a key aspect of the case without assessing its accuracy. As a result, it did not evaluate how his inaccurate reporting impacts his level of risk .’
‘It is not necessary for you to abandon your stance of innocence, but you would need to focus on meaningful risk reduction, which requires that you develop trust and better relationships with professionals.’
‘ The panel failed to reach a conclusion about what risk factors [the Respondent] has. Alternatively, if no risk factors were found, the panel has failed to state this or give reasons for that conclusion. Having not reached a conclusion about [the Respondent’s] risk factors, the panel was unable properly to consider how his risk could be managed in the community.’
‘The panel observed that grievance thinking and not engaging with professionals were both put to the test given the passage of time the review took. There is no escaping [the fact that] the reasons for the adjournments were directly attributable to the National Probation Service and provided an opportunity to test the presence of these risk factors. [Dr C] in her evidence said [the Respondent] has a “strong capacity to get on with people who he fundamentally disagrees with”. The evidence from the POM and COM was clear that he had continued to engage with them without any issues and there was no evidence of any grievance thinking. If there was a credible basis to suggest these [risk factors] remain live then the [Applicant’s counsel] would no doubt have tested this within oral evidence but did not do so.’
‘ The panel did not address the fact that [the Respondent] is a Category A prisoner who is not deemed safe enough to manage in a less secure environment.’