“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 .”
“In the closing submissions, the legal representative puts forward that [the Applicant] has changed and is extremely insightful, particularly when discussing past relationships, accepting that he should have disclosed them. “The panel was mindful that professionals did not consider that open conditions was necessary for [the Applicant] and that they recommended release. However it disagreed with them as whilst [the Applicant] is able to describe in theory the importance of disclosing relationships, the panel was not confident that he would be able to disclose relationships in the future as this is yet to be tested. It noted that he told the previous panel, in 2023, that his intention was to disclose any developing relationships yet once in the community he failed to do this. For his risk to be safely managed, [the Applicant] would need to disclose all relationships. It is not clear that he understands yet the importance of doing this, despite the repeated recalls. Even when his dishonesty has been exposed, he has continued to not be fully open. “Although [the Applicant] has not been violent for many years, he has also not been in the community for any lengthy period. His key risk would be in relationships and he is yet to be tested in that situation when a relationship is in difficulty or when [the Applicant] is no longer in the structured environment of approved premises. The panel was not confident that [the Applicant’s] risks could be safely managed in the community and concluded that there was a more than minimal risk that, were he no longer confined, [the Applicant] would commit a further offence, the commission of which would cause serious harm. It concluded that he needed to remain confined for the protection of the public and made no direction for release. “The panel considered that the public could be protected were [the Applicant] to be in the community on temporary release as his risk was not imminent. There would be benefits of a move to open conditions so that he could rehearse disclosure in a somewhat more structured setting with the support of PERS [Pathway Enhanced Resettlement Service] if possible. This would hopefully set him on the track where he is not recalled so quickly when eventually released. The panel considered that [the Applicant] did not present a more than minimal risk of absconding and recommended that he be transferred to open conditions. It did not consider that he would need a particularly lengthy period of testing in open conditions although it is for the Secretary of State to determine the timing of the next review .”
“ Does the conclusion follow from the evidence or is there an unexplained evidential gap or leap in reasoning which fails to justify the conclusion?”
“At the hearing all of the professional witnesses gave firm/assured recommendations for release. We argue that the decision of 26 th February is an unreasonable departure from the recommendations of the professional witnesses and the decision is, in our submission, irrational/unreasonable. “The professional witnesses are, of course, specifically tasked with the assessment of risk and vastly experienced in the same and “In arguing this we acknowledge, of course, that it is within the discretion of the panel not to follow the recommendations of witnesses at the hearing. However, the panel does have to still justify the decision that it makes, and it is not open to the panel to make decisions on a basis that does not withstand scrutiny. “Whilst the panel can of course adopt a different position to the witnesses, in doing so, they must provide appropriate reasons for the same. In our submission the panel’s rationale is conspicuously brief/superficial and it does not genuinely engage with the clear/firm recommendations of the professional witnesses. “It is submitted that in the instant case, the impugned decision, is irrational/unreasonable having regard to the evidence adduced, heard, tested, and considered by the panel.”
“[The Applicant] is continuing to work with STRIVE both with an occupational therapist and with a psychologist, focusing on his recalls after having first built a relationship with the professionals. He was said to be open to completing this work and engaged well, looking at his core beliefs around relationships. STRIVE report that [the Applicant] is considered to have ‘a number of unmet childhood needs that have supported the development of entrenched beliefs about himself, other people and the world around him.’. It notes that intimate relationships have been central to [the Applicant’s] recalls, with him fearing the loss of the intimate relationship which led to him concealing it. [The Applicant] told the panel that he had come to understand that he tends to put other people before himself in a romantic relationship as he does not want to look coercive or controlling which can lead him to not telling probation. [The Applicant] has not completed any further schema work with STRIVE since the last recall.”
“The psychologist considers that [the Applicant] has addressed his core risk factors although would benefit from further work in relation to problem solving, thinking skills, healthy relationships and emotional regulation. The panel agreed that whilst [the Applicant] has completed all core risk reduction work, he is yet to complete the schema work around his fear of abandonment and rejection and emotional instability. It appreciated that schema work can take a long time and that he has been involved in this work previously, although not recently. [The Applicant] is making incremental steps towards being safer by addressing substance misuse and emotional regulation. This represents a good foundation for future schema work.”
“The psychologist notes that the external management and monitoring of [the Applicant’s] risk factors would be a high priority, especially when he is not applying his insight or using his skills to manage problems …. “[The Applicant] could continue to work with STRIVE although this is on a voluntary basis. However there is nothing to indicate that he would not take the opportunity to continue the work. He would also be referred to the substance misuse service. “[The Applicant] does not know if he wishes to have a relationship with the woman he was with at the time of recall … “[‘The Applicant] … has a number of protective factors including coping, empathy, employment, self-control, external controls and leisure activities.”