Sokoni, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 105 (14 May 2026) [2026] PBRA 105

PBRA
Sokoni, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 105 (14 May 2026)
[2026] PBRA 105 · 2026-03-28
[1]This is an application by Sokoni (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of an oral hearing panel dated 28 March 2026. The decision of the panel was not to direct release[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 dossier, the application for reconsideration drafted by the Applicant's legal adviser, the decision of the oral hearing panel and the representations by the Secretary of State (the Respondent). Request for Reconsideration[4]The application for reconsideration is dated 14 April 2026.[5]The grounds for seeking a reconsideration are set out below. Background[6]The Applicant is serving an extended sentence of imprisonment comprising of a custodial period of eight years and extension period of four years. The Applicant was aged 37 at the time of sentence. He was 47 at the time of the oral hearing decision. The Applicant was released automatically on 16 August 2021. He was recalled on 28 June 2022.[7]The index offence was wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The facts of the index offence were that the Applicant was in a nightclub in the early hours of the morning of the offence. The victim and the Applicant were in a toilet. The Applicant had taken painkillers and drunk heavily and also taking cocaine and cannabis. The Applicant became verbally aggressive towards the victim after the victim had spoken to him briefly. The Applicant then swung a glass object at the victim causing him serious facial injuries. The Applicant has consistently denied using a glass object to strike the victim. The Applicant's explanation has changed over time. In 2019 the Applicant told professionals that he admitted being verbally abusive and throwing the victim to the floor. In December 2020 he told professionals that the victim had attacked him and that during the physical altercation the victim had fallen onto a bottle which was already on the floor. The Applicant had also told the professional that he had not taken alcohol or drugs.[8]The Applicant has a significant number of previous convictions. The convictions begin at the age of 15 and include robbery, supplying class A drugs, possession of an offensive weapon, having a bladed article, affray, a section 18 wounding in 2002, and a section 20 wounding in 2010.[9]The Applicant was recalled following concerns about allegations of domestic abuse towards a former partner. The Applicant had a condition not to contact the partner but admitted that he was in contact with her. Current parole review[10]The referral from the Respondent requested the Parole Board to consider whether the Applicant should be subject to a direction for release.[11]The panel hearing took place on 19 March 2026. The panel consisted of an independent chair and two further members both of whom were psychology members of the Parole Board. Evidence was received from a Community Offender Manager (COM), a Prison Offender Manager (POM) and a prison commissioned psychologist. The Applicant was legally represented. There were two observers one from the probation service and a speech therapist present at the hearing. The Relevant Law[12]The panel correctly sets out in its decision letter dated 28 March 2026 the test for release. Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)[13]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)).[14]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)).[15]A decision to recommend or not to recommend a move to open conditions is not eligible for reconsideration under rule 28. This has been confirmed by the decision on the previous reconsideration application in Barclay [2019] PBRA 6 . Irrationality[16]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.[17]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. "[18]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).[19]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.[20]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.[21]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[22]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.[23]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;(c) they were not properly informed of the case against them;(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.[24]The overriding objective is to ensure that the Applicant's case was dealt with justly. Error of law[25]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.[26]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[27]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. "
[28]Omitting to put information before a panel is not a ground for procedural unfairness, as has been confirmed in the decision on the previous reconsideration application in Williams [2019] PBRA 7 . This is the case even where the information, had it been before the panel, would have been capable of altering its decision, or prompting the panel to take other steps such as putting the case off for an oral hearing where the new information and its effect on any risk assessment could be examined. This is because procedural unfairness under the Rules relates to the making of the decision by the Parole Board, and when making the decision the panel considered all the evidence that was before them. There was nothing to indicate that further evidence was available or necessary, and so there was nothing to indicate that there was any procedural unfairness. Reconsideration as a discretionary remedy[29]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[30]The Respondent offered no representations. Discussion Ground 1[31]The Applicants' legal advisor submits that the panel were wrong to place weight upon the fact that the Applicant had resumed contact with his ex-partner during the time that he was in the community. The Applicant's legal adviser particularly notes that the allegations of violence and abusive behaviour towards the partner were not substantiated by way of a court hearing or conviction because the partner refused to support any action by the police. Discussion[32]The Applicant was recalled in circumstances where an allegation had been made that he had breached a licence condition and a restraining order and had had contact with his former partner. There had been allegations of abusive behaviour including smearing a parcel delivered to the partner with faeces and leaving a knife outside her home.[33]As noted by the Applicants legal adviser, the more serious allegations of domestic violence and highly abusive behaviour towards the ex-partner (allegations which were recorded by the police) were not pursued by the police. However, the Applicant himself admitted frequently breaching the condition not to contact the partner and accepted that he had been in regular contact with her. He also accepted that he had made a comment that she should terminate her pregnancy because he was not the father of the child. He had also admitted smearing with faeces, a parcel delivered to the partner's home.[34]In the light of the fact that there was a lengthy history of domestic abuse by the Applicant and the matters which the Applicant himself admitted (and indeed said that he regretted) I am not persuaded that the panel acted irrationally in taking account of the risk towards partners. The Applicant's risk towards his partner, and possibly other partners in the future, is clearly a live and continuing area of risk. The panel in my view were entirely reasonable in taking account of the risk in coming to a conclusion about the Applicant's risk of serious harm in the community. I am not therefore persuaded that by taking account of the behaviour towards the partner prior to recall, the panel acted irrationally or unfairly. The absence of a court conviction could not be a basis for the panel ignoring the fundamental concerns about domestic violence in this case. Ground 2[35]It is submitted that the Parole Board panel indicated that the Applicant had undertaken psychological work although the panel noted that the work had not been directly related to offending. The work was more the form of counselling and support for the Applicant to manage his personal challenges. The panel therefore place less weight upon the effectiveness of such work in terms of managing risk. It is therefore submitted that the Parole Board acted unfairly, particularly as the Applicant was a person with low cognitive functioning. Also cited is the Equality Act 2010. It is submitted that the Parole Board panel indirectly discriminated against the Applicant by failing to take account of the fact that his disability might have prevented him from undertaking suitable risk reduction work. The Applicant's legal adviser also indicates that the Applicant had in fact completed a thinking skills course and that he had participated in psychological work which, although not necessarily accredited rehabilitation work, would help him to improve his behaviour and strengthen the risk management plan (RMP). Discussion[36]The panel considered the position relating to work undertaken by the Applicant at paragraph 4.4 of the decision. The panel acknowledged that psychological work had been undertaken and accepted that there had been some positive effect upon the Applicant's ability to control behaviour and understand his emotions. The panel acknowledged that the Applicant appeared to be motivated to improve himself. The concern of the panel was that the changes in the Applicant's presentation had been for a relatively short period of time. The panel were also concerned that the work undertaken by the Applicant, provided by professionals, was primarily around the Applicant's own thinking and personal development and was not offence-related. The panel were bound to take note of the fact that there had been difficulties in the past in response to previous treatment interventions. The panel's overall conclusion was that the Applicant did not demonstrate an ability to consistently put into practice the learnings from (risk related) work that he had undertaken. Additionally, there was a continuing concern relating to risks associated with intimate partner violence.[37]The panel indicated that, based upon the dossier evidence, and the evidence adduced at the panel hearing itself, the Applicant had given inconsistent accounts of his behaviour. He had also minimised and denied much of the negative behaviour. The panel found the Applicant's evidence " far from compelling ".[38]The final conclusion of the panel was that, although some progress had been made, there was insufficient evidence that the Applicant could adhere to the RMP and thereby reduce risk consistent with the test for release. The panel took the view that the RMP relied heavily upon external controls and that the evidence relating to the Applicant was that he has a history of poor compliance and dishonesty when in the community.[39]The panel were entitled to take a holistic view of the dossier evidence and of the evidence adduced at the hearing. The panel's duty was to make a fair and reasonable assessment of that evidence. The panel were also obliged to explain how they reached their conclusion. Having considered the detailed decision of the panel I determine that the panel explained in detail the reasons why they had concluded that the test for release was not met. In my determination the panel were also entitled to make a distinction between psychological work which amounted to personal development and support relating to diversity and learning difficulties and accredited offence focused work aimed at reducing risk.[40]So far as discriminatory behaviour was concerned. I am not persuaded that the panel failed to act fairly in relation to the Applicant's cognitive difficulties. The test for release is unqualified and requires the panel to focus upon the risk to the public rather than the effects of the decision upon the Applicant. The panel in my view appropriately focused their decision upon the future risk to the public and applied the test for release appropriately. For that reason, I am not persuaded that this ground amounts to a basis for reconsideration. Ground 3[41]It is submitted by the Applicants legal adviser that the Applicant was able to access psychological work for 24 weeks. It is submitted that this lengthy period of engagement should have been given greater weight. In addition, it is submitted that following the psychological work there was an improvement in behaviour and therefore the potential strengthening of the RMP. It is further submitted that the professionals in this matter all supported release because of the improved behaviour of the Applicant following his psychological work. Discussion[42]As is well understood panels of the Parole Board are not obliged to accept the opinions and recommendations of professional witnesses. It is their responsibility to make their own risk assessments and to evaluate the likely effectiveness of any RMP proposed. They must make up their own minds on the totality of the evidence that they hear, including any evidence from the Applicant. They would be failing in their duty to protect the public from serious harm (while also protecting the prisoner from unnecessary incarceration) if they failed to do just that. As was observed by the divisional Court in DSD they have the expertise to do it.[43]However, a panel making a decision contrary to the opinions and recommendations of professional witnesses should clearly explain its reasons for doing so and the stated reasons should be sufficient to justify its conclusions as per Wells above.[44]The Applicant in this case had a long and troubling history involving offences of robbery, supplying class A controlled drugs, possessing offensive weapons, wounding, grievous bodily harm (in 2010), assault occasioning actual bodily harm, breach of a non-molestation order, harassment and further battery matters. The Applicant had also breached licence conditions. The panel were therefore entitled to take a cautious approach in terms of the recommendations by the professionals. The panel were particularly concerned about the potential for partner violence and the fact that the Applicant had entirely ignored requirements that he should not be in contact with his partner when in the community. The contact that he had with the partner resulted in allegations of abusive behaviour, the Applicant therefore showed no understanding or willingness to adhere to the earlier licence conditions and RMP.[45]The panel also made a finding on the balance of probabilities which related to the Applicant's propensity to address grievance matters by smearing items with human faeces. There had been incidents relating to human faeces while the Applicant was in the community and in prison following his recall. The behaviour was bizarre and clearly a matter of concern from the point of view of the panel because an indication of grievance thinking was directly associated with the risk of serious harm. The facts of the index offence itself indicate that it may well have been connected with grievance thinking in the sense that the Applicant explained the violent assault in terms of him being annoyed that the victim had approached him to speak to him.[46]This was clearly a complex case. In my determination the panel have carefully assessed the competing issues and explained the reasons for declining to follow the recommendations of the professionals. Put succinctly the panel took the view that the emphasis by the professionals was upon the more recent improved behaviour following the general psychological treatment. The panel had the opportunity to listen to the Applicant's evidence and explanations and also took account of a substantial list of concerns from the security department of the prison. The security evidence was indicative of a potential that the RMP could not effectively manage the Applicant's risk in the community. The panel's overall conclusion was that the Applicant did not have the appropriate and necessary internal controls with regard to managing his risks which were essential to underpin the RMP and to manage risk in the community.[47]The panel particularly took note of the fact that the professionals had reached a conclusion on the basis of what amounted to a relatively short period of time in which the Applicant had demonstrated some improvement in behaviour. The panel was also cognisant of the fact that a period of good behaviour in a controlled custodial environment does not necessarily translate into similar behaviour in the community. The Applicant's highly risky behaviour in terms of violence towards the public and violence in a domestic setting was deep-rooted and embedded. The panel were not convinced that psychological counselling work and a short period of stable behaviour were sufficient evidence that the potentially high risk posed by the Applicant could be managed safely in the community. The panel took the view that the professionals underestimated the potential risk and overestimated the benefits of the psychological intervention and the recent indications of good behaviour.[48]For these reasons I have considered whether the decision of the panel in accordance with the requirements of Wells and the need to explain the reasons for the decision and to ensure that the reasons justified the conclusions. Although the Applicant may be disappointed, the panel clearly set out the reasons why it concluded that the Applicant's risk could not, at the time of the oral hearing, be safely managed in the community. For this reason, I do not order reconsideration on this ground. Ground 4[49]The Applicant's legal adviser submits that the panel misunderstood a comment by the Applicant. The panel took the view that the Applicant reported that he had had numerous intimate short-term partners in the past. The Applicant's legal adviser indicates that he had merely stated that he had seen " female friends " during his release. It is therefore submitted that the panel failed to understand the Applicant's approach to intimate relationships and that therefore overstated his risk. Discussion[50]The distinction between the Applicant confirming that he had seen female friends and an indication from the panel that he had reported intimate short-term partners appears to me to be a finely balanced argument. The risk of intimate partner violence was clearly high in this case and could not be ignored. The Applicant was clearly drawn to associations with women. The Applicant had a poor record for domestic abuse historically. There were offences relating to intimate partner violence recorded in the past on the Applicant's record and there was a clear indication of a continuation of abusive behaviour following the last release from prison. In my determination the panel were entitled to concentrate a significant portion of their considerations towards the risk of serious harm in a domestic environment in the future. I am not persuaded that the panel erred in their understanding of the Applicant's approach to intimate relationships. I do not therefore take the view that this amounts to a basis for reconsideration. Ground 5[51]It is submitted on behalf of the Applicant, by the Applicant's legal adviser, that the Parole Board panel were irrational in using a previous opinion (of the COM and POM) when making an assessment as to whether the Applicant's risk could be safely managed. Discussion[52]This submission arises in circumstances where the panel had considered a previous Parole Board decision (in 2024) In the decision the panel noted that the Applicants COM and POM were both supportive of release in 2024 and supportive of release in 2025. Both these professionals based their recommendations upon good behaviour and a robust RMP. It appears that the point being made by the panel was that the COM and POM had clearly developed a firm position that the elements of good behaviour and motivation were the basis of their recommendation. So far as irrationality is concerned, it appears that this was merely a comment about the consistency of the position of the POM and COM. I am not persuaded that it amounts to evidence of irrationality supporting a decision to order reconsideration. Ground 6[53]The Applicant's legal adviser submits that the panel were wrong to conclude that the RMP was insufficient to manage the Applicant's risk in the community. The Applicant's legal adviser submits that because of the Applicant's diversity issues he is likely to be more dependent upon external controls (and that his case should be considered in the context of a prisoner with diversity and other challenges). In the circumstances therefore it is argued that it would be unfair to conclude that the Applicant's risk could not be safely managed by the RMP without considering his individual diversity concerns. Discussion[54]In my determination this is an issue that relates to the panel's assessment of evidence. The panel had the advantage of an extensive dossier of reports and other material. They had the advantage too, of seeing and hearing the Applicant as well as the other witnesses. The role of the panel is to make an assessment of the evidence and to reach their own independent conclusion taking account of the views of witnesses and of the evidence generally. It will frequently be the case that the panel will take a different view to professionals and will make a different assessment of the evidence. It is a matter for a panel to determine which opinion and evidence they prefer and provided their conclusions are soundly based upon evidence as well as rational and reasonable or at least not so outrageous in the sense expressed above the panel's decision will not be characterised as irrational. The panel in this case gave clear explanations as to their reasons for reaching their decision. I am not therefore persuaded that this ground amounts to irrationality in the sense set out above. As noted below, the panel were obliged to treat the Applicant fairly and take account of his personal challenges, however the test to be applied by the panel is not qualified and must be applied by taking account of the risk to the public. This may well result in those with mental health learning and diversity issues having difficulty in evidencing an ability to manage their risks in the community. The codified protection test does not make distinctions between various individuals or prisoners but must be applied universally. The panel in my view applied the test as required by the Act. Ground 7[55]The Applicant's legal adviser submits that the panel were irrational in indicating that a future panel would benefit from evidence of sustained good behaviour. It is submitted, by the Applicants legal adviser, that the panel did not suggest any further risk reduction work. It is submitted that the Applicant had maintained positive behaviour for some seven months (although there had been continuing concerns from the security department of the prison). It is submitted on the Applicant's behalf that further time in custody would not improve or reduce the potential risk. Discussion[56]In my determination, this ground also relates to an assessment by the panel of the evidence presented to them. The reality in this case was that the Applicant had an exceptionally troubled history. He had a long record of convictions, as noted above, and was recalled after a relatively short time having been released on licence on an earlier occasion. In my determination the panel were justified in indicating that an extended period of time in a specialist progressive wing of a prison would be a useful measure for any future panel. I am not therefore persuaded that this amounts to an irrational conclusion by the panel. Although the maintenance of good behaviour in prison can never be solely determinative, good behaviour is an indication, particularly over time, of the potential for managing risk in the community. Ground 7[57]The Applicant's legal adviser argues generally that the decision by the panel was flawed, irrational and illogical. It is submitted that the panel misunderstood and mischaracterised the professional evidence and that the panel should not have taken account of the failure by the Applicant to apply learning after undertaking earlier behavioural programmes because those programs were not adapted to his disabilities. Discussion[58]As indicated above this was a complex case. The Applicant's challenges are wide ranging and not entirely understood even by professionals. Issues such as the smearing of faeces in circumstances where the Applicant apparently had a grievance are complex concerns, and areas of behaviour that the Applicant himself found difficulty in explaining. The Applicant is also a risk to partners in circumstances where a relationship is in difficulty or deteriorating and for that reason the panel were understandably cautious in accepting the views of professionals.[59]Although it is understandable that the Applicant may have been disappointed, in the circumstances of support from professionals, that he had not been subject to a direction for release, the fundamental issue in this case, as referenced by the panel was the fact that the test to be applied related to the risk posed by the Applicant to the public rather than the benefit that the Applicant might gain from being released from custody. After consideration of the decision in this case and the detailed explanation of the reasons for the decision, I am not persuaded that the panel's assessment could be characterised as irrational in the sense set out above. Decision[60]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. HH Stephen Dawson 14 May 2026