Harrison, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 107 (18 May 2026) [2026] PBRA 107

PBRA
Harrison, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 107 (18 May 2026)
[2026] PBRA 107
[1]This is an application by Harrison (the Applicant, now known as Abdualshakur) for reconsideration of a decision of an oral hearing dated 31 March 2026 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 decision, · the application for reconsideration, prepared by a legal representative on the Applicant's behalf, but unsigned and undated, and · the dossier, which now consists of 574 numbered pages, the decision being the last document.[4]There are two further documents which have been sent to me. They appear to have been prepared by the Applicant. One is headed "Reasons you believe there was an error in law and/or the correct process was not followed." The other is headed "Reasons you believe the decision was irrational or unreasonable." The explanation for these in the Application is "The Applicant has prepared a separate document setting out further concerns regarding the decision. This is enclosed for completeness and context, although the present application focuses on the primary legal grounds relied on."[5]I take it that the Application is the document prepared by the legal representative, and will therefore deal with the grounds therein advanced. Request for Reconsideration[6]The grounds for seeking a reconsideration are that the decision is irrational, in that key findings central to the refusal are not supported by sufficient evidence. Four specific matters are advanced:(1) irrational findings regarding alleged knowledge of third-party criminality;(2) irrational financial and lifestyle analysis;(3) failure to properly engage with material evidence, and(4) irrational assessment of risk. Background[7]The Applicant was 21 years old when he was convicted of the index offences, for which he received a sentence of imprisonment for public protection (IPP), with a tariff of two years, which expired in December 2009. The offences followed from his seeing two youths tampering with his scooter. The Applicant used his dog to follow one of the youths. The dog bit the victim. The Applicant put the victim into the boot of a friend's car, and the Applicant allowed his friends to strip the victim down to his underpants before releasing him. When the police went to the Applicant's home they found parcels of wrapped cannabis. The Applicant was in breach of a two-year youth custody sentence for possession of a bladed article. The Applicant had a number of previous convictions.[8]The Applicant was released on licence after a Parole Board hearing in August 2013. His licence was revoked in June 2023. He did not return to custody until 11 March 2025. He was recalled because he had travelled outside the UK without permission. He went to Northern Cyprus via Turkey on 3 June 2023. He had also travelled to Barcelona in August 2019, and returned four days later.[9]While he was on licence there had been some difficulties in the Applicant's compliance with supervision.[10]The circumstances of the Applicant's departure to Cyprus in 2023 are that his twin brother was due to stand trial for being concerned in the supply of controlled drugs. The Applicant went to Cyprus two days before the trial was due to start. During his trial, the Applicant's brother told the court that the Applicant was involved in drug dealing.[11]The Applicant asserted that he had had permission to leave the country, which he did because he became mentally unable to cope with the conditions of his parole licence. Probation records indicate that on 4 August 2022 the Applicant's supervising officer told him he had permission to travel, but he must notify her when he intended to go. He was told he could go away for one month, but he asked for six months. He was told this was not possible.[12]The Applicant's Community Offender Manager (COM) at the time he left for Cyprus told the panel that the Applicant on 18 April 2023 said he wanted to go abroad to sort out his business. She said she did not give him permission to go, and in any event did not have the authority to do so. The Applicant told the panel that he believed his travel had been approved, and that, when he reviewed the probation documentation, he believed there must have been a miscommunication.[13]Although the Applicant knew his licence had been revoked, he did not return to the UK until March 2025, at a time when he may have believed that the changes to the rules about termination of IPP licences would be to his advantage.[14]Another area of concern at the hearing was whether the Applicant was, like his brother, involved in dealing in drugs. The drug-dealing took place in 2020, using an encrypted platform called Encrochat, and a mobile phone with the handle name Serialfox . The police alleged that the Applicant and his brother shared a flat, described as a "plush apartment" . The flat was rented in the Applicant's name from October 2020 until shortly after the arrest of his brother in March 2021, when the Applicant gave up the tenancy giving the reason that he could not afford to live there any more. The police examined the Applicant's bank statements and alleged he was living beyond his apparent means.[15]In the event the panel did not conclude that there was evidence that the Applicant was directly involved in criminality with his brother. It found it more likely than not that he knew that his brother was involved in criminality and that the Applicant directly or indirectly benefited from the proceeds of that criminality. Current parole review[16]The Applicant is now 39 years old. The referral from the Secretary of State (the Respondent) is dated 24 March 2025, and asked the Parole Board to consider a direction for release or, alternatively, a recommendation for open conditions. The panel first sat on 16 October 2025, and adjourned for further information about the Applicant's lifestyle on licence. The panel sat again on 12 January 2026. The Applicant had uploaded a number of documents to the dossier, which the panel had not seen. The COM had seen some, but not all, of the documents. The panel adjourned to allow the witnesses and the panel the opportunity to consider the material.[17]The oral hearing concluded on 30 March 2026. The panel consisted of two independent members of the Parole Board. The COM, the Prison Offender Manager (POM) and a stand-in POM all gave evidence, as did the Applicant. A police officer gave evidence at the first hearing. The Applicant was legally represented. His representative asked questions of the witnesses, including the Applicant, and made written submissions after the final hearing. The Relevant Law[18]The panel correctly sets out in its decision 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)[19]Rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules provides the types of decision which are eligible for reconsideration. This is an eligible decision and an eligible type of sentence. Irrationality[20]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 ( Wednesbury ) 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.[21]In R (DSD and others) -v- the Parole Board [2018] EWHC 694 (Admin) ( Worboys ) 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. "
[22]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) .[23]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.[24]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.[25]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 Secretary of State[26]The Respondent has chosen not to make any representations in regard to this application. Discussion[27]The issues raised in the application are, first, whether the panel's findings are justified by the evidence; and, secondly, whether the panel's decision not to direct release is justified by its findings. The application sensibly breaks these questions down in order to focus on various aspects of the decision-making process, and I will follow the approach there set out.[28]It is important to bear in mind that panels of the Parole Board make decisions as to release on a holistic basis, not just looking at one aspect of the case. Where a panel arrives at a conclusion, exercising its judgement based on the evidence before it and having regard to the fact that it saw and heard the witnesses, it would be inappropriate to direct that the decision be reconsidered unless it is manifestly obvious that there are compelling reasons for interfering with the decision of the panel.[29]In my judgement the panel was entitled to draw from the evidence the conclusion that it did, that the Applicant, on the balance of probabilities, knew that his brother was involved in criminality at the time they were sharing the flat. Of course, direct evidence of this is lacking, which is not surprising, but there was a proper basis on which the panel could draw the inference it did. The brothers are twins, and are close. The Applicant rented a flat (with a deposit of £2192.31 and monthly rental of £1900) that he could not afford on his own: it is a reasonable inference that he would wish to know what his brother's means were, and how he derived them. The Applicant made a payment of £1700 to the firm that rented a car to the user of the drug-linked Serialfox phone. The panel, having examined the evidence about the Applicant's means, accepted the police officer's evidence that the Applicant was living beyond his declared means. The panel was entitled to take into account the evidence of the COM, who had known and worked with the Applicant from 2005 to 2015, and again from November 2022, that " She did not believe [the Applicant] did not know what his brother was up to, given their relationship and the space they shared. She also assessed that the Applicant's evidence in relation to the income he was receiving 'did not add up'."[30]I approach the issue as to whether the panel was entitled to draw the inference as to knowledge that it did, by reference to the approach the Court of Appeal has approved for a judge in the Crown Court considering the inferences to be drawn from the evidence on a submission of no case to answer at the close of the prosecution case, bearing in mind, of course, that the panel here was applying the civil standard of proof, more probable than not . " Where a key issue is whether there is sufficient evidence on which a reasonable jury would be entitled to draw an adverse inference against the defendant from a combination of factual circumstances based upon evidence adduced by the prosecution, the question is whether a reasonable jury could, on one possible view of the evidence, reject all realistic possibilities consistent with innocence and so reach that adverse inference; not whether all reasonable juries would do so ": RvG and F [2013] Crim.L.R. 678. The inference drawn need not be the only, or even in someone else's opinion the most likely, one available. In this case I am satisfied that, on the evidence, a reasonable panel could draw the inference as to knowledge that the panel did here.[31]Applying the same test to the inference as to financial and lifestyle analysis drawn by the panel, the panel was entitled to come to the conclusion it did. The application argues that " the panel relied on isolated financial indicators (including expenditure and deposits) to infer criminal benefit, without establishing that such an inference was the only or most likely explanation ." As I have set out above, that submission is founded on an incorrect approach to the issue of drawing inferences.[32]The panel did not " fail properly to engage" with material evidence. It took into account all the matters raised in this section of the application (the absence of direct evidence of involvement in drug dealing in particular). The fact that it came to a decision with which the Applicant disagrees does not mean that it was irrational of the panel to do so. The suggestion that the panel has failed to demonstrate its engagement with the evidence is ill-founded: in its decision the panel dealt with the evidence in detail.[33]As to risk, and imminence of risk, the panel did place significant weight on concerns about honesty and openness. These are proper concerns, and the evidence on this aspect of the case justified the panel's concerns. What needs examination is the way the panel moves from concerns about compliance to a decision not to direct release.[34]Stepping back and looking at the case overall, the Applicant was released from his IPP on licence in 2013. Since then, he has not re-offended. He spent just under 10 years subject to IPP licence before he left the country without permission and stayed away for 21 months. His supervision was not without its difficulties, perhaps principally caused by his mistrust of his probation officer and his wish, after so long, to be free of restraint.[35]The panel very properly referred to paragraph 2(vi) of the leading case of Osborn v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61 , and the need to scrutinise ever more anxiously whether the level of risk is unacceptable the longer the time the prisoner has spent in prison following the expiry of his tariff. This is, of course, a somewhat different case, where the prisoner has spent a very substantial amount of time in the community after his release, but it seems to me, as it seemed to the panel, that the principle applies here, perhaps to an even greater extent. The panel did give the case extremely close and detailed scrutiny. The panel considered carefully whether the concerns over compliance and dishonesty amounted to an increased risk of causing serious harm, and commented that judgements in this respect were finely balanced. The panel found the combination of the Applicant's lack of honesty and insight into his risks, together with his attitude towards compliance and his proximity to the offending behaviour of his brother, together with his likely benefit from it, to be of significant concern. The panel was not convinced that the risk management plan would mitigate the risks the Applicant currently presents.[36]When a panel says that a decision is finely balanced, it accepts that another panel could reasonably come to a different conclusion. I, too, accept that another conclusion could, in this case, be considered to be rational. However, neither a notional other panel, nor I, have had this panel's advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses give evidence, particularly, of course, the Applicant. I cannot find that this panel's decision is one to which no reasonable panel could come. I must therefore dismiss this application for reconsideration.[37]The Applicant's own arguments have been placed before me "for completeness". I have looked at them to see if they raise issues which I have not dealt with in this decision.[38]The Applicant argues that the panel's findings about his knowledge of his brother's activities are wrong. This aspect of the case was comprehensively discussed by the panel, and I have considered those findings above. He draws attention to his compliance on licence for almost 10 years. The panel was fully aware of this. He argues against the panel's view of his unauthorised departure from the UK. He points to the support for release by the witnesses: panels of the Parole Board are not obliged to adopt 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 risk management plan 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 Worboys , they have the expertise to do it. This panel carefully explained its reasons for not agreeing with the witnesses' recommendations.[39]The Applicant further complains about the panel failing to acknowledge the work he has done since his recall. None of this was risk-reduction work, and, in any event, the panel specifically acknowledged it. His other complaints are, as one would expect, encompassed, so far as they have relevance and significance, in the solicitor's application. The Applicant raises a number of factual errors in various reports: it does not seem that any of these played a part in the panel's analysis or decision.[40]I do not find in the Applicant's own grounds anything that should affect my decision on the application itself. Decision[41]For the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the decision was irrational and accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused. HH Patrick Thomas KC 18 May 2026