Williams, Application for Reconsideration by the Secretary of State for Justice [2026] PBRA 104 (19 May 2026) [2026] PBRA 104

PBRA
Williams, Application for Reconsideration by the Secretary of State for Justice [2026] PBRA 104 (19 May 2026)
[2026] PBRA 104 · 2026-03-20
[1]This is an application by the Secretary of State for Justice (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of an oral hearing panel dated 20 March 2026 directing release of Williams (the Respondent).[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(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 oral hearing decision, the dossier consisting of 1167 pages, the application for reconsideration and the response to the application for reconsideration. Request for Reconsideration[4]The application for reconsideration is dated 16 April 2026. It has been drafted by HMPPS Reconsideration & High Court Referral Section for the Applicant. It submits that the decision is irrational.[5]The submission is supplemented by written arguments to which reference will be made in the Discussion section below. Background[6]The Respondent received a sentence of life imprisonment on 3 June 1999 following conviction for rapes of his stepdaughter over a period of ten years. His tariff was set at six years and expired in March 2005. He was 41 years old at the time of sentencing and is now 68 years old.[7]He was released on licence on 5 June 2014 following a Parole Board decision. His licence was revoked and he was returned to custody in October 2015. His recall followed allegations made against him by a sex worker in an area through which he had driven. Current parole review[8]The Respondent's case was referred to the Parole Board by the Applicant in May 2024 to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to direct his release. If the Board did not consider it appropriate to direct release, it was invited to advise the Applicant whether the Respondent should be transferred to open conditions.[9]The case proceeded to an oral hearing via videoconference on 4 February 2026. The panel consisted of two independent members and a psychologist member. It heard oral evidence from the Respondent, together with his Prison Offender Manager (POM), Community Offender Manager (COM), prison based forensic psychologist and a prisoner commissioned psychologist. The Applicant was represented by an advocate. 10.The panel directed the Respondent's release subject to a risk management plan and detailed licence conditions. The Relevant Law[11]The panel correctly sets out in its decision dated 20 March 2026 the test for release and the issues to be addressed in making a recommendation to the Secretary of State for a progressive move to open conditions. Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)[12]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)).[13]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 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) 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). 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. 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. The reply on behalf of the Respondent 19.The Respondent disagrees with the grounds submitted by the Applicant and further submits that there are errors in the Applicant's account of the background to the case. Discussion 20.Ground 1 - the Applicant submits that the panel placed weight on the Respondent's self-report despite his denial and the previous Parole Board finding his account to lack credibility. 21.There are a number of reasons to reject this ground. The panel considering this decision was doing so afresh and was not bound by any finding of a previous panel. It was a matter for the panel what weight it attached to evidence and in considering the application it was a matter for them what they accepted as credible or not. The panel carefully analysed the account presented and more importantly explained how that which it had accepted informed its final conclusion. The rejection of parts of the Respondent's account did not undermine the entirety of his account or the question of the manageability of his risk. 22.Ground 2 - the Applicant submits that the panel placed undue weight on the Respondent's engagement with the ACORN service. The grounds submit that the service is not an accredited one designed to reduce risk. 23.The panel was concerned with risk and the test for release. The ACORN was just one aspect of the panel's consideration. As the Respondent states in his reply, " the purpose of any offence related work, regardless of whether it is an accredited offending behaviour course or not, is risk reduction ". The panel placed weight, but not "undue weight" on engagement with the service. The more important conclusion, and one held by the professionals, was that the Respondent had done all risk reduction work necessary. This ground cannot therefore succeed. 24.Ground 3 - the Applicant submits that the panel has given insufficient consideration to the Respondent's associations and social networks. The grounds express concern that the Respondent should move from closed conditions to release without a period in open conditions. 25.The Respondent sets out that the index offence occurred between 47 and 41 years ago and that associations and contacts are of some age and whereabouts unknown and he made no new associations during his period on licence. 26.The panel was satisfied that the Respondent had undertaken sufficient intervention to reduce his risk, the panel took into account his motivation and conduct in custody and accepted the evidence that there was no further risk reduction work to be undertaken. Whilst there may be "potentially a high risk of serious harm" if he reoffends, the risk of reoffending was low and there was proposed a risk management plan which the panel considered to be " very comprehensive and highly stringent ". In the light of the panel's clear findings regarding risk and the protections and conditions, a period in open conditions was not necessary. 27.The Respondent in his reply submits that the Applicant has made factual errors in his narrative of the background. I am satisfied that those matters do not affect the grounds set out in the application and it is not necessary for me to investigate or make a decision upon those matters, in particular as the correct position on matters relevant to its consideration is set out the panel's decision. 28.The legal test for irrationality sets a high bar as the Applicant recognises in the application and this decision does not meet that test. Decision 29.For the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the decision was irrational and accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused. Barbara Mensah 19 May 2026