Hasseen, Application for Reconsideration by the Secretary of State for Justice [2026] PBRA 103 (22 May 2026) [2026] PBRA 103

PBRA

Hasseen, Application for Reconsideration by the Secretary of State for Justice [2026] PBRA 103 (22 May 2026)

[2026] PBRA 103 · 2026-03-27

[1]This is an application by the Secretary of State (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of a panel of the Parole Board dated 27 March 2026 directing the release of Hasseen (the Respondent) following an oral hearing on 19 February 2026.

[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 decision, the application for reconsideration, the response to it from the Respondent and the dossier. Request for Reconsideration

[4]The application for reconsideration is dated 23 April 2026.

[5]The grounds for seeking a reconsideration are that the decision is irrational and the hearing was procedurally unfair. There are three bases for this submission:(i) That the panel did not properly consider and/or attach sufficient weight to a security report relating to the Respondent making inappropriate remarks to a female member of staff at the prison.

(ii) The panel directed release when they knew that a theological mentor was not going to be in place at the time of release and/or failed to adequately explain in their decision why they had done this.

(iii) The panel did not adequately evidence their consideration of the non-disclosable information submitted by the Applicant to the Board.

[6]I will treat this application on the grounds that the decision was irrational and that inadequate reasons have been given for it. Background

[7]On 10 June 2013 the Respondent was sentenced to an extended determinate sentence of 23 years and nine months, comprising of 18 years and nine months in custody and a 5 year extended licence period, for an offence of engaging in conduct in preparation for terrorist acts. He also received a concurrent two year custodial sentence for possession of a document or information useful for terrorism. This involved plotting an attack on an English Defence League rally involving an IED and firearms. It was an extremely serious offence which only didn't result in serious injury or fatalities because other conspirators did not turn up on time for the rally. The sentencing judge, having considered whether a life sentence was required because of the seriousness of the offence, decided that it was not. Current parole review

[8]The Respondent's case was referred to the Board on 11 April 2024 and this is his first parole review. There were a number of adjournments before the oral hearing, in part for further courses to be completed.

[9]During the oral hearing on 19 February 2026 the panel heard from the Community Offender Manager (COM), the Prison Offender Manager (POM), a psychologist who had conducted and interpreted the Extremism Risk Guidance (ERG) assessment and an Imam. The Relevant Law

[10]The panel correctly sets out in its decision dated 27 March 2026 the test for release. 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)). Irrationality

[13]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.

[14]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. "

[15]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).

[16]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.

[17]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.

[18]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

[19]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.

[22]The reply on behalf of the Respondent is dated 5 May 2026. Discussion

[23]The offences committed by the Respondent were very serious and could have had fatal consequences. If he were released and committed another similar offence the consequence could be mass fatalities. I am satisfied that the panel and the witnesses who spoke in support of release had this well in mind in the hearing.

[24]So, while I understand the Applicant's concerns, the panel had to act on the evidence presented to them.

[25]The COM, POM and psychologist all supported release and while the Imam was not at the hearing to give an assessment of risk he was supportive of the progress made by the Respondent while in prison. The psychological testing (ERG) supported the submission that the Respondent's risk had reduced to a level where it was safe for him to be released on licence. In those circumstances it is impossible to sensibly argue that the decision to release was irrational taking an overall approach.

[26]I will now deal with the grounds put forward by the Applicant individually.(i) The panel investigated the remarks made to the female prison employee and, while they were reprehensible, the panel was perfectly entitled to conclude that they did not increase the risk of further offending. That was the evidence of the witnesses. That is clearly explained in the decision.

(ii) While the panel were of the view that it would be desirable for there to be a theological mentor in place on release they were entitled to conclude that not having one immediately in place would not make the Respondent's risk unmanageable. That clearly must also have been the view of the specialist probation counter terrorism lead otherwise they would have asked for release to be deferred or would have ensured that a mentor was in place at the time of release. It also was the view of the professional witnesses who did not consider that this would make the risk unmanageable. I consider it is clear from the decision that that was the view of the panel. While they wished there to be a theological mentor in place at the time of release they did not consider that the fact that there wasn't one made the risk unmanageable in the community.

(iii) The panel did not include in their reasons their assessment of the material which was not disclosed to the Respondent. It would be difficult to do so without revealing what the material was. It cannot be suggested that they did not consider it as the non-disclosure application was made as a result of the panel asking for more information on a part of the security report if I have read the dossier correctly. They also refer in their decision to the fact that there was undisclosed material for them to consider. The panel are not bound to deal with every piece of evidence in their decision. The COM would clearly have known of it but it did not change her recommendation.

[27]I have considered the non-disclosed material and I do not consider that it would or should have changed the decision of the panel. Some of the information came from some time ago and was in contrast to the more recent information.

[28]In so far as it may be suggested that the failure to deal with this material in detail in the decision was procedurally unfair or irrational I do not agree. To deal with it in more detail would have required a closed judgment which was unnecessary in all the circumstances. Decision

[29]For the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the decision was irrational or procedurally unfair and accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused. John Saunders 22 May 2026