Magee, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 94 (13 May 2025) [2025] PBRA 94

PBRA

Magee, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 94 (13 May 2025)

[2025] PBRA 94 · 2025-03-27

[1]This is an application by Magee (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a paper decision dated 27 March 2025 not to terminate his IPP licence.

[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

[3]I have considered the application on the papers. These are the decision letter, the dossier consisting of 175 pages and the application for reconsideration. Request for Reconsideration

[4]The application for reconsideration is dated 14 April 2025 and has been drafted by solicitors acting for the Applicant.

[5]The grounds for seeking a reconsideration are that the decision was procedurally unfair and that it contained an error of law. These submissions are supplemented by written arguments to which reference will be made in the Discussion section below. No submissions were made regarding irrationality. Background

[6]The Applicant received a sentence of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) on 20 July 2009 following conviction for an offence of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The tariff is recorded in the decision letter as having been set at 6 years and 313 days. The tariff expired in November 2016.

[7]The Applicant was 26 years old at the time of sentencing and is now 42 years old. This is his first licence review. Current parole review

[8]The Applicant’s case was referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State (the Respondent) in March 2025 to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to terminate his licence. If the Board did not consider it appropriate to terminate his licence, it was invited to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to terminate the supervisory elements of the licence or add/amend/vary any additional conditions contained in the licence.

[9]On 27 March 2025 a single member panel of the Board considered the referral and decided not to terminate the IPP licence. The member considered a dossier containing 160 pages. The Relevant Law

[10]The panel correctly sets out in its decision letter of 27 March 2025 the test for termination. Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)

[11]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)).

[12]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)). 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;

(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. Error of law

[16]An administrative decision is unlawful under the broad heading of illegality if the panel: a) misinterprets a legal instrument relevant to the function being performed; b) has no legal authority to make the decision; c) fails to fulfil a legal duty; d) exercises discretionary power for an extraneous purpose; e) takes into account irrelevant considerations or fails to take account of relevant considerations; and/or f) improperly delegates decision-making power.

[17]The task in evaluating whether a decision is illegal is essentially one of construing the content and scope of the instrument conferring the duty or power upon the panel. The instrument will normally be the Parole Board Rules, but it may also be an enunciated policy, or some other common law power. The reply on behalf of the Respondent 18.The Respondent submitted representations which are considered in the Discussion below. Discussion 19.Procedural Unfairness The application states that the panel failed to consider the legal representations submitted, the panel stated in the decision letter that there were no representations and that the dossier being considered was 160 pages. This position is confirmed by the Respondent who reports that the Case Worker on 13 March 2025 was informed that the representations had to be submitted within 5 days. They were said to have been submitted via email on 19 March 2025. The Respondent states that:

“PPCS have had a look at this and have been informed that [the Applicant’s] case was referred to the Parole Board on Thursday 13 March without his legal representations. They were received while the PEC Casework managing the case was on annual leave on 19 March. The representations were added to [the Applicant’s] IPP Termination dossier, but a new dossier wasn’t created on PPUD, therefore, the Parole Board didn’t have sight of the representations when considering [the Applicant’s] case.” 20.I accept that there was procedural unfairness, through no fault of the panel member, in the failure to bring the representations which had been submitted on time to the attention of the panel member for consideration when reviewing the licence termination referral. 21.Error of Law The application submits that the panel failed to fully consider the terms of the Respondent’s referral, specifically in failing to consider the terms of the second part of the referral. The application submits that no consideration was given to the question of suspending supervision and that there is no reference to that aspect of the referral within the decision letter. 22.I do not agree that the second part of the referral was ignored by the panel member. The panel member notes that there is no support from the professionals for ending supervision. During the course of his sentence the Applicant has been released and recalled on 4 occasions. His last release was in January 2025 and whilst the panel member acknowledged that the Applicant’s behaviour had been positive since that release the panel member considered that “ it is too early to be confident that positive behaviour to date means that his licence conditions are no longer required to protect the public ”

. By that conclusion I am satisfied that the panel member did not consider it appropriate to suspend the supervisory element and, whilst it could have been stated more explicitly, reading the conclusion as a whole the panel member did not consider it appropriate to add, amend or vary any conditions. 23.I am satisfied therefore that this ground is not made out. Decision 24.I have found there to have been a procedural irregularity. I do so solely for the reasons set out above. The application for reconsideration is therefore granted and the case should be reviewed by a fresh panel by way of a paper hearing. Barbara Mensah 13 May 2025