Bridet, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 80 (28 April 2025) [2025] PBRA 80
[1]This is an application by Bridet (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of an oral hearing dated 6 March 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, and the application was made in time.[3]I have considered the application on the papers. These are: · The Decision Letter (DL) · Representations on behalf of the Applicant dated 24 March 2025 · The dossier, which, in the form I have it, runs to 335 pages, ending with a note from the Community Offender Manager (COM) · An email from the panel chair, in response to an inquiry I sent through the Parole Board secretariat, which I discuss below. Request for Reconsideration[4]There are several grounds for seeking a reconsideration, all alleging procedural unfairness. In the circumstances I need only consider one of them.[5]The principal complaint is that the panel decided the case without considering representations on behalf of the Applicant. The panel chair accepts that this was the case: he writes frankly " The post hearing submission from the rep was not considered and I accept this was a procedural irregularity as the decision had already been made when the submission was received. " Background[6]The Applicant was 31 years old in 2014, when he received an extended sentence comprising a 10 year custodial term and 4 years extended licence. He had forcibly raped and sexually assaulted a woman who was alone in her place of work. He had 6 previous convictions for 8 offences, all for much less serious offences, though one was for false imprisonment which, the sentencing judge in the index offences commented, appears to have related to a potential sexual assault.[7]The Applicant is now aged 42. In October 2021 a panel of the Parole Board considered his case on the papers, and made no direction for release. In December 2023 he was released on licence automatically. He was recalled in March 2024 for breaches of his licence. Current parole review[8]This was the Applicant's first review since his recall. The Secretary of State's (the Respondent's) referral is undated, and invites the Board to consider release.[9]A two-member panel of the Parole Board heard the Applicant's case remotely on 4 March 2025. The panel heard evidence from the COM, the Prison Offender Manager (POM) and the Applicant. The Applicant was legally represented throughout. The Relevant Law[10]The panel correctly sets out in its decision letter the test for release.[11]This is an eligible sentence and an eligible decision for reconsideration. 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 focuses 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.[15]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[16]The Respondent has offered no response to this application. Discussion[17]I discuss only the ground which asserts, correctly, that the panel's decision was reached without consideration of submissions on behalf of the Applicant. Given my decision on this point, I will not say anything about the other grounds.[18]The sequence of events as set out in the Application is that during the hearing there was some discussion about psychologically supported accommodation, as being important for the Applicant as part of his release plan. The COM informed the panel that she had referred the Applicant for such accommodation but not yet received a reply. The Applicant's legal representative applied for an adjournment so that this information could be obtained. The panel refused the application, but asked the COM to find out what the position was, and gave the Applicant's representative the opportunity to make submissions in writing when the information was forthcoming.[19]The COM sent an email dated 5 March 2025, the day after the hearing, to say that she had made a mistake in her evidence, and that the Applicant had already been accepted for the suggested accommodation. The Applicant's legal representative received this information on 5 March, as, I believe, did the panel, although the COM's email only appeared in the dossier on 7 March. In any event, it is undoubtedly the case that the panel's decision, dated 6 March 2025, was finalised without any consideration of submissions on the Applicant's behalf, or, indeed, the representative having any reasonable opportunity to advance her submissions.[20]The panel chair accepts that this was a procedural irregularity, and so do I. The only remaining question is whether the effect of the irregularity is such that I should direct a re-hearing.[21]It is perfectly possible that, had the panel seen submissions on behalf of the Applicant, its decision would have been the same. However, in my judgment, to refuse reconsideration in this case would give rise at the very least to a perception that justice had not been seen to be done. Decision[22]Accordingly, I find there has been a procedural irregularity, and I consider, applying the test as set out in case law, that the decision not to direct release was procedurally unfair. I grant the application for reconsideration, solely for the reasons set out above. The case should be reviewed by a fresh panel by way of an oral hearing. Patrick Thomas 28 April 2025