Lytollis, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 101 (11 May 2026) [2026] PBRA 101

PBRA

Lytollis, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 101 (11 May 2026)

[2026] PBRA 101 · 2026-03-18

[1]This is an application by Lytollis (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of an oral hearing panel dated the 18 March 2026 not to direct release. (The Applicant was ineligible for a progressive move to open conditions)

[2]Rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended by the Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2025) (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 dossier now consisting of 487 pages, the decision of the OHP, the reconsideration application drafted by the Applicant's legal adviser, on their behalf. The Secretary of State (the Respondent) offered no representations via email on the 21 April 2026 Request for Reconsideration

[4]The application for reconsideration is dated 7 April 2026.

[5]The grounds for seeking a reconsideration are set out below. Background

[6]The Applicant was sentenced to detention for the public protection (DPP) on 7 October 2011 for Section 18 wounding with intent, committed on 25 February 2011. His tariff expired on 1 March 2013. The Applicant was seventeen when sentenced. He was also sentenced to a further 12 months concurrent detention in a YOI for a further offence of Section 20 GBH committed on 12 November 2010 whilst on bail for the index offence. The index offence was committed with others, in drink. The Applicant is said to have remonstrated with the victim and hit him over the head with a broken bottle. The November 2010 matter involved the Applicant punching the victim in the head for a dare, causing a fractured cheekbone and eye injuries.

[7]The Applicant was first convicted aged thirteen for being unlawfully on enclosed premises. However, he had come to the attention of the police before these matters, receiving a reprimand for robbery and AOABH in 2004 (aged 10). The PNC printout in the papers evidences an extensive criminal record, with an emerging pattern of violent and anti-social behaviour, including convictions for AOABH, threatening behaviour, and failing to surrender. These offenses were committed whilst on licence and resulted in a further term of imprisonment. Current parole review

[8]This was the Applicant's third parole review since his second recall. The Applicant was thirty-two at the time of the oral hearing decision.

[9]The hearing took place initially on the 10 November 2025 but was adjourned for the completion of a psychological risk assessment (PRA). The same panel reconvened on the 5 March 2026. The panel consisted of two independent Parole Board Members and a specialist psychologist member. Evidence was taken from the Community Offender Manager (COM), Prison Offender Manager (POM), the Psychologist (prison instructed), and the Applicant. The Relevant Law

[10]The panel correctly sets out in its decision letter dated 18 March 2026 the test for release. It notes that the Applicant is ineligible for a progressive move to open conditions due to his previous abscond. 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)).

[13]A decision to recommend or not to recommend a move to open conditions is not eligible for reconsideration under rule twenty-eight. This has been confirmed by the decision on the previous reconsideration application in Barclay

[2019] PBRA 6

. Irrationality

[14]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.

[15]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. "

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

2019 EWHC 2710

(Admin) 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).

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

[18]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.

[19]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 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

[23]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.

[24]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. Other

[25]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. "

[26]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

[27]The Respondent offered no representations in response to the Applicant's reconsideration application. Grounds and Discussion

[28]The reconsideration application was drafted in narrative form, in attached legal submissions provided by those instructed on the 7 April 2026. Those instructed argue that the panel's decision is irrational on the following grounds: Grounds:

[29]The panel did not adequately consider how the Applicant's Attention-Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) diagnosis affected his ability to exercise internal controls.

[30]Those instructed argue that all report writers recommended release and that the proposed risk management plan had sufficient external controls to manage the Applicant's risk. They also argue that ' professionals did not evidence that the Applicant needed "to show greater internal controls in custody prior to risk being manageable in the community."

[31]Those instructed submit that the panel placed " more weight on him [The Applicant] not evidencing use of internal controls" and ' failed to consider The Applicant's overall behaviour.' They further submit that the panel failed to acknowledge concrete evidence that impulsivity had been effectively managed by the Applicant in real situations.

[32]Those instructed also ' dispute that the examples given by the panel to support their position that there is insufficient evidence of internal controls being used are valid' a nd cite a variety of other skills the Applicant has evidenced which they suggest shows the Applicant's ability to resist acting impulsively.

[33]Those instructed argue the panel placed too much weight on adjudications, which they say do not directly relate to the risk of serious harm.

[34]Finally, those instructed argue that the panel have failed to take into account the impact of the Applicant's ADHD diagnosis on his ability to develop internal controls. Those instructed state that ' impulsivity is an ensuring feature of ADHD which cannot be eliminated and only managed.' They argue that the panel has failed to explain how the applicant might be expected to achieve greater internal controls with his ADHD diagnosis and also an acknowledgement of previous problems with the Applicant's medication whilst in the open estate. Discussion:

[35]Having reviewed all the information before me, I am satisfied the panel was alive to the fact that the Applicant had a confirmed diagnosis for ADHD. There is mention of the Applicant having ADHD throughout the decision, including that he had a confirmed ADHD diagnosis before the commission of the index offence (paragraph 1.3). There is also specific mention of ADHD in paragraph 1.4 of the decision, which details recognised risk factors. Furthermore, there is an acknowledgment that the Applicant was not properly medicated for his ADHD when last in the open estate and that this may have contributed to the difficulties he experienced at that time (paragraph 2.5). In paragraph 2.15 of the decision, the panel further references how ADHD impacted the Applicant's ability to undertake a sedentary work placement. The panel also confirms that at the time of the hearing, the Applicant was concordant with his prescribed ADHD and how this was prescribed ' to help manage potential impulsivity' (paragraph 2.23). It seems to me that the panel was not only aware of the Applicant's diagnosis but spent time assessing how this diagnosis could impact on the Applicant's presentation and progress.

[36]On the evidence before me, I do not accept that the panel failed to consider the practical impact of the Applicant's ADHD diagnosis on his ability to exercise internal controls, nor that the panel failed to explain how the Applicant might be able to achieve greater internal controls with an ADHD diagnosis. In my opinion, the panel did consider how the Applicant's diagnosis of ADHD could practically impact on his ability to demonstrate internal control. The panel clearly identified how difficulties with the Applicant's medication caused problems for him when last in the open estate, and it made a clear link between the Applicant's compliance with medication and improved stability following his recategorisation, " he is also concordant with his prescribed medication to manage ADHD, which helps manage potential impulsivity " (paragraph 2.3). Plainly, the panel understood the importance of medication on the Applicant's presentation, and how non-compliance with medication could increase impulsivity. Beyond that, in my view, it is not for the panel to provide a solution or involve itself in how to manage the Applicant's ADHD, which should be a matter for the prison and relevant services.

[37]Furthermore, although the panel identified the Applicant's ADHD as being a relevant risk factor (paragraph 1.4), the panel (and professionals) also identified several other risk triggers relevant to the Applicant's difficulty progressing his sentence. These include his immaturity, the personality presentation, spending his formative years in prison, issues linked to poor coping and ongoing drug use. Furthermore, in November 2025, the panel adjourned the Applicant's case for an updated psychological risk assessment (PRA) and specifically asked the report writer to comment on " specific barriers to progress" (Adjournment note November 2025). The PRA report [Hayden 2026] does not identify the Applicant's ADHD as the sole factor for his lack of progress, but one aspect of many, and in the same way, neither does the panel within its decision.

[38]At the time of the hearing in March 2026, there were ongoing concerns around the Applicant's self-management, resulting in proven adjudications, even at a time when he was seemingly compliant with his medication. Those instructed argue that the panel placed too much weight on these matters; however, in my opinion, whilst these matters may have contributed to the panel's decision, there is no evidence of overreliance on them. It is normal for a panel to consider proven adjudications and Security and Intelligence Reports (SIRs) when completing its risk assessment, and the manner in which they are described is balanced in my view, with the Applicant's own explanations/mitigations being noted.

[39]With regards to the submission that the panel failed to consider the panel's overall positive behaviour, again I am not satisfied that this is a fair appraisal. There is significant evidence in the decision from the POM, COM and prison instructed Psychologist about the progress the Applicant had made since, being returned to closed conditions and the robustness of the external risk management plan. There is recognition that all professionals supported release at the hearing and recognition of some evidence of improved engagement and compliance during the review period. To ensure a truly fair and up to date risk assessment the panel even adjourned the Applicant's case for an updated psychological risk assessment. However, as is its duty, the panel also had to consider the Applicant's risk within the context of his offending history more broadly and his history of extremely poor compliance and poor decision making. In so doing the panel noted, that the Applicant has consistently struggled to progress his sentence and has been in open conditions four times unsuccessfully and has been released and recalled twice. As recently as February 2025, he absconded from open conditions and remained unlawfully at large (UAL). Whilst UAL he was found in possession of a knife and convicted of this matter, committed on licence. It seems to be that the panel simply concluded that a longer period of stability and testing was required in this case, given the Applicant's historic poor compliance, risk profile, and offending behaviour.

[40]Whilst all report writers recommended release the panel, formed an alternative view This is the panel's right; indeed, its duty. The decision includes a thoughtful and comprehensive explanation of its final judgment at paragraphs 4.0-4.6.

[41]For the reasons set out above, I do not find evidence of irrationality within the panel's decision. Decision

[42]Refusal - For the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the decision not to direct the Applicant's release to be irrational and accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused. Heidi Leavesley 11 May 2026