Heaton, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 100 (07 May 2026) [2026] PBRA 100

PBRA

Heaton, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 100 (07 May 2026)

[2026] PBRA 100 · 2026-03-19

[1]This is an application by Heaton (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision (the Decision) of a panel (the Panel) of the Parole Board (the Board) dated 19 March 2026 not to direct his release. The Decision was made following an oral hearing on 13 March 2026.

[2]Rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended by the Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2025) (the 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 within the prescribed time limit.

[3]I have considered the application on the papers. These are: the application for reconsideration with written submissions; the Decision; the case dossier of 421 pages; and an email dated 20 April 2026 from the Public Protection Group in the Reconsideration and High Court Referral Section of HM Prison and Probation Service (PPG) on behalf of the Secretary of State (the Respondent). Request for Reconsideration

[4]The application for reconsideration is dated 10 April 2026.

[5]The grounds for seeking a reconsideration are that the Decision was irrational in that it did not have sufficient regard to the opinions or assessments of the professionals involved in the Applicant's case who had significant knowledge of him and instead favoured a divergent and separate account based on a smaller body of information. Background

[6]On 29 January 2016, having pleaded guilty to attempted wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, the Applicant received an extended sentence of imprisonment comprising a custodial element of seven years and six months followed by an extended licence period of five years. At the same time, he was sentenced to a concurrent term of 18 months imprisonment for unauthorised possession in prison of a knife or offensive weapon.

[7]The Parole Eligibility Date (PED) under the extended sentence was 13 May 2021 and his Conditional Release Date (CRD) was 10 November 2023. The Sentence Expiry Date is in July 2028. The determinate sentence has expired by effluxion of time.

[8]The Applicant was a few days short of his 23 birthday when he committed the attempted wounding and had numerous previous convictions dating from 2008 when he was a juvenile. These included convictions for taking a motor vehicle without consent, failing to surrender to custody, criminal damage, possession of a bladed article, attempted theft of a vehicle, attempted theft from a motor vehicle, threatening behaviour, and attempted robbery. Some offences were committed when he was on bail and some when subject to a suspended sentence of imprisonment.

[9]The Applicant has a long history of indiscriminate aggressive behaviour from a young age which was later precipitated by drug induced psychosis. There was a history of violent reaction to bullying which was encouraged by his father and this expanded to involve violence towards those who did not agree with him or to whom he held a grudge.

[10]Examples of the Applicant's erratic and violent behaviour in his previous offending include approaching members of the public in the street brandishing a large knife and threatening staff at job centre with a crowbar.

[11]The Applicant was sentenced on 13 October 2014 to 32 months imprisonment for the attempted robbery, and it was while serving that sentence that he committed the first index offence of attempted wounding. He approached a prison officer from behind holding a length of wire which he had converted into a weapon by peeling back the plastic covering to expose the sharp metal core. He seized the officer and attempted to stab him by continually thrusting the wire into the area of the officer's neck, saying " I'm going to kill you ". The thickness of the officer's coat prevented any injury and other prison officers managed to restrain him.

[12]The Applicant was subsequently transferred to a different prison and it was there that he committed the second of the index offences. A search of his cell revealed a hidden deliberately improvised weapon, namely a tin can which had been folded and wrapped in a sheet to create a blade capable of being used to slash people.

[13]The psychiatric report considered by the sentencing judge referred to longstanding alcohol and drug misuse and a history of mental health issues and psychiatric admissions. However, the assessing psychiatrist diagnosed paranoid personality disorder rather than a psychotic illness and concluded that he was fit to be tried.

[14]No direction for release was made at the PED stage under the extended sentence. The Applicant was released automatically on his CRD, 10 November 2023. His licence was revoked on 14 June 2024 for breaching licence conditions, and he returned to custody on 17 June 2024. He had been suspended from the Thinking Skills Programme for non-attendance, provided positive drug tests for cocaine, and his alcohol monitoring tag was not working. Although he maintained that he was complying with the licence condition requiring him to reside at a specific address following the end of his Approved Premises (AP) placement, a check showed that he had done so for no more than a week. The Applicant refused to disclose where he had been living.

[15]A review of the Applicant's case on the papers was concluded by a decision dated 2 September 2024. The panel on that occasion decided that the recall had been justified and did not direct his release. It noted that he accepted full responsibility for his negative behaviour and had demonstrated increased maturity but considered that further evidence of core risk reduction work was needed. It expressed concern about the Applicant's use of drugs and alcohol in the community alongside mental health difficulties and poor coping skills. Current parole review

[16]The following year, the Respondent again referred the Applicant's case to the Board to consider whether to direct his release. As before, it was not asked to make any recommendation about his suitability for open conditions.

[17]The review was conducted by the Panel, comprising three independent members, at an oral hearing on 13 March 2026. The Applicant, then aged 34, attended and was legally represented. There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Respondent.

[18]The case dossier of 395 pages included written reports by the Applicant's Community Offender Manager (COM), the Substance Misuse Team, Mental Health In-Reach Team and by the Security Department. A psychological risk assessment (PRA) was provided by a psychologist instructed by the Prison Service. Oral evidence was given by the COM, by the Applicant's Prison Offender Manager (POM), by the author of the PRA and by the Applicant himself. Closing written submissions dated 18 March 2026 were made by the Applicant's legal representative.

[19]The Applicant accepted at the hearing that the recall had been justified and that he had not been ready for release. He also acknowledged that his behaviour in custody throughout his sentence had been in his words "appalling and disgraceful". He admitted at the hearing that although an allegation of assaulting another prisoner in January 2025 had not been proved at the adjudication hearing, he had slapped him. He described him as a sex offender who had become cocky.

[20]The POM described the Applicant's behaviour since recall as poor, with proved adjudications for disobeying an order, threatening a prison officer, failing one drug test and refusing to take another. He continues to deny making threats to the officer. Security entries refer to compliance issues including using a television whilst on the basic regime, possessing a mobile phone and bullying. There were both negative and positive entries on his prison record. He accepted that he had lied to the POM about the reason he failed to take his mandatory drug test. It was accepted that the recent reduction in proved adjudications represented an improvement.

[21]The Applicant has engaged with mental health and substance misuse teams, meeting with a psychiatrist every fortnight and the POM considered his mental health to be far more stable than in 2025. The Applicant confirmed that he had agreed to change his medication but that he had chosen a month previously to take a break from it as is his habit. He intended to resume taking it shortly.

[22]Both the POM and the psychologist considered there to be no further core risk reduction work necessary in custody and the COM confirmed that the Building Choices intervention would be available for the Applicant in the community.

[23]According to the 23 January 2026 OASys report, the Applicant's static risk factors place him in the group of offenders whose risk of offending generally is medium. The probability of both violent and non-violent re-offending is assessed as medium and the risk of serious recidivism based on dynamic or changing factors over the following two years was assessed as medium at 4.07%. The COM confirmed those assessments at the hearing, and they were accepted by the Panel.

[24]The psychologist witness who considered that in addition to previously identified issues the Applicant was struggling with Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD), concluded that the Applicant had a full and comprehensive understanding of his risk factors and what he must do to manage his risks more effectively. She has recommended intervention to help him understand the effects of trauma in his life and to reduce residual distress but does not consider this to be core risk reduction work. In her view, the recommended trauma work could be addressed in the community as set out in detail in her report. In her professional opinion, there was no more than a minimal risk that the Applicant would commit an offence leading to serious harm.

[25]The COM, the POM and the prison psychologist all recommended release with a Risk Management Plan (RMP) that they considered to be robust. It mirrors the RMP applied to his first release and involves an initial period of up to six months at a Psychologically Informed Planned Environment (PIPE) AP. The Applicant is eligible for the Offender Personality Disorder pathway with access to support from the Community Mental Health Team and agencies such as Inclusion and CGL for wellbeing, mental health and substance misuse. Licence conditions considered both proportionate and necessary to manage the Applicant's risks would be imposed. All three professional witnesses considered that warning signs of any escalating risk would become apparent.

[26]The Panel concluded that the RMP was as robust as possible in the circumstances but noted that a similar plan, albeit without monitoring tags, was in place during his first release. It considered that it was highly reliant on external controls and that he had not developed sufficient internal coping skills to thrive independently once he moved on from the AP as before.

[27]The Panel did not accept the professional witnesses' opinion and recommendations which cited the Applicant's insight, reflection and custodial behaviour since recall. The Panel considered that his custodial conduct, although improved, had continued to raise concerns. Substance misuse is a key factor linked to serious harm and has remained a persistent issue in custody. The increase in the Applicant's illicit substance misuse and his decision to stop taking his medication were both of significant concern given that the index offence was committed during a period of reduced medication when he experienced auditory hallucinations. The Applicant has not completed any further accredited risk reduction work (although the nature of this has not been identified), there is a heavy dependence on external controls, and limited protective factors.

[28]Having considered all the above matters and applying the codified test, the Panel was not satisfied that the Applicant presents no more than a minimal risk of serious harm, concluded that his continued confinement remained necessary for the protection of the public and therefore made no direction for release. The Relevant Law

[29]The Panel correctly sets out in its Decision the test for release. Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)

[30]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)).

[31]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

[32]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.

[33]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. "

[34]In R(on the application of Wells) -v- Parole Board

2019 EWHC 2710

(Admin) Saini J 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).

[35]As was made clear by Saini J this is not a different test from the Wednesbury test. The interpretation of and application of the Wednesbury test in Parole hearings as explained in DSD was binding on Saini J.

[36]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.

[37]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. Procedural unfairness

[38]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.

[39]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.

[40]The overriding objective is to ensure that the Applicant's case was dealt with justly.

[41]The Applicant does not submit that there has been any procedural unfairness in his case. Error of law

[42]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.

[43]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.

[44]The Applicant does not submit that there has been any error of law in his case. Other

[45]In Oyston

[2000] PLR 45

, at paragraph 47 Lord Bingham said:

" It seems to me generally desirable that the Board should identify in broad terms the matters judged by the Board as pointing towards and against a continuing risk of offending and the Board's reasons for striking the balance that it does. Needless to say, the letter should summarise the considerations which have in fact led to the final decision. It would be wrong to prescribe any standard form of Decision Letter and it would be wrong to require elaborate or impeccable standards of draftsmanship. "

Reconsideration as a discretionary remedy

[46]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

[47]In its email message dated 20 April 2026, the Respondent, confirmed that they offered no representations in response to the application for reconsideration. Discussion

[48]In their written representations, the Applicant's legal representative submits that while the Panel was entitled to disagree with professional recommendations, the justifications it used were the result of flawed conclusions. They refer to five reasons which they say were given by the Panel for not accepting them.

[49]The first is in respect of the Applicant's custodial behaviour, including concerns about substance misuse and aggressive behaviour towards staff. It is submitted that there was no evidence of these escalating to an offence paralleling situation and that the misused substance was medication not associated with his previous risks.

[50]In my judgment whilst opinions about the link between these matters is debatable it cannot have been irrational for the Panel to reach its own conclusion having taken into account the views of the professionals, as it expressly did, and rejected them with full reasons.

[51]The second area of reasons is in respect of the Applicant's compliance with medication. The Panel cited the fact that the index offence was committed when he was on reduced medication and that during the hearing he expressed concern that he would become over reliant and wished to have periods when he did not take it. It is submitted that there has been no evidence of offence parallelling behaviour at times when he was not taking medication and the professionals had expressed no serious concerns about any failure to do so.

[52]I consider that the Panel was entitled in view of the Applicant's poor record of substance misuse coupled with the previously known adverse behavioural effects of not taking prescribed medication, to conclude that lack of compliance was an active and present risk. It was not irrational for the Panel to take into account the views of the professionals as it did and to reject them.

[53]The third area is the lack of core risk reduction work undertaken to address the Applicant's violent offending. It was common ground that no accredited programmes have been available to the Applicant thus far since his recall. It is submitted on the Applicant's behalf that the Panel failed to balance its concern about the Applicant's past use of weapons against the lack of use of weapons since the index offence as well as there being no evidence of violence upon a risk escalation scenario leading to his recall. It is further argued that the Panel showed insufficient regard to the opinion of the professionals that risk reduction work could be completed in the community and that the PIPE AP would provide support to ensure that the Applicant did not return to the chaotic lifestyle which was assessed as his most likely risk scenario.

[54]The Panel clearly set out in the Decision the reasons why it considered (as did the previous panel) that there were outstanding treatment needs that must be completed in custody. It is not for the Panel to determine how these are to be met and the fact that this has not so far been decided is irrelevant. The Panel was entitled to reach an opposite view to those of the professionals and clearly set out its reasons for so doing. It expressly set out the key risk factors underpinning his violent behaviour that remain unaddressed. It acknowledged the absence of physical violence in custody since the Applicant's recall but was not satisfied that he had yet developed the necessary internal controls to manage his risk outside what it described as the highly structured environment of the closed custodial estate. In the light of the clear and fully considered reasons provided, the Panel's conclusion in this area cannot be properly described as irrational.

[55]The fourth area is the concern the Panel expressed about the Applicant's reliance on external controls through his practice of isolating himself from peers, staff and professionals. The evidence was that his lack of engagement was now for much shorter periods and that this did not correlate with negative behaviour. In the view of the POM, the Applicant re-engaged quickly and would be able to discuss what he had been thinking about as soon as possible. The psychologist had concluded that the Applicant's tendency to reflect on his mistakes and make changes was one of the numerous reasons why he could be managed in the community. The professionals were of the view that the Applicant's risk was not imminent and that an escalation in risk would be noticeable.

[56]I note that the Panel dealt with this issue specifically in the Conclusion section of the Decision. It expressed the view, with clearly expressed reasons, that the RMP was heavily dependent on external controls and that the Applicant had not developed sufficient internal coping mechanisms to progress safely, particularly once he moves on from the AP. This was illustrated by his regular habit of shutting himself away and cutting himself off from peers, staff and professionals. In the light of the clear and fully considered reasons provided, the Panel's conclusion cannot properly be described as irrational.

[57]The fifth area is the concern the Panel is said to have expressed about the limited protective factors the Applicant will have once he leaves the PIPE AP. It is submitted on behalf of the Applicant that the professionals had emphasised the internal controls and motivation he has evidenced in custody.

[58]The Panel dealt with this issue specifically in its Conclusion section when it expressed the view that the lack of protective factors was problematic. The Panel pointed to the reduced support available in the community once he leaves the AP, namely the support of his mother which itself had been absent during his time in custody.

[59]The Panel acknowledged that the professional witnesses supported release, despite some concerns expressed by the psychologist and the COM about threats he had made to prison staff, his recent adjudications and his failure to take medication. The Decision shows the witnesses were carefully questioned about areas of concern. Full account was taken of the evidence and opinions expressed and the Panel identified those areas requiring further exploration and resolution.

[60]A detailed analysis of risk and protective factors was undertaken, and the Panel carefully explored the effectiveness of the RMP. The concluding section of the Decision sets out detailed logical reasons why the Panel did not agree with the views of the three professional witnesses.

[61]The Panel applied the codified test rationally having regard to all the evidence and concluded that the protection of the public from serious harm required the Applicant to remain confined. Full reasons for the decision were provided, and the Panel identified those areas in respect of which further evidence would assist a future panel considering the Applicant's case. Decision

[62]For the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the Decision was irrational and accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused. HH Judge Graham White 07 May 2026