Pilkington, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 109 (21 May 2026) [2026] PBRA 109

PBRA

Pilkington, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 109 (21 May 2026)

[2026] PBRA 109 · 2026-02-13

[1]This is an application by Pilkington (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of a Parole Board Panel (the Panel) made following an oral hearing held on 13 February 2026, not to direct his release.

[2]By Rule 28 of the Parole Board Rules, a panel's decision is eligible for reconsideration if one or more of the grounds set out in the Rules is made out.

[3]This is an eligible case, and the application has been made within the time limit for such applications. The case has been allocated to me as one of the members of the Board who are authorised to make decisions on reconsideration applications.

[4]I have considered the application on the papers which include: a) The dossier which now runs to 1040 pages, b) The panel's written decision, c) Submissions made on behalf of the Applicant on 5 March 2026 and on 17 April 2026 and, d) Submissions made by on behalf of the Secretary of State (the Respondent) on 18 March 2025 and 13 February 2026. Request for Reconsideration

[5]In general terms, the grounds for seeking a reconsideration of the Panel's decision in this case are that it is irrational and/or procedurally unfair in that the Panel failed to consider, sufficiently or at all, relevant factors when assessing risk and/or failed to provide adequate reasons to justify and explain their decision not to follow the unanimous recommendations of the professional witnesses who supported release. Background

[6]The Applicant is serving an imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentence imposed on 15 December 2006 for an offence of manslaughter. He was sentenced to serve a minimum prison term of four years less time spent on remand. The offence, to which he had pleaded guilty had been committed in the early hours of the 1 February of that same year. The Applicant was then aged 23, the victim, with whom the Applicant had a relationship, was then age 19. This was the Applicant's second conviction for manslaughter.

[7]The Panel in its decision summarised and adopted the facts taken from a previous Parole Board decision in March 2024:

"The victim was your girlfriend.... You returned home in the early hours of 1st February 2006 after drinking all day. During the course of an argument about you being unfaithful, you slapped her. You grabbed her by the throat and threw her to the bedroom floor. You told her that you were leaving, she grabbed your arm, and you tried to get her to let go by striking out. She lost her balance and fell down the stairs, hitting her head. You did not call an ambulance immediately and the sentencing judge noted that you lay with her under a duvet at the bottom of the stairs for several hours. [The victim] died from her injuries in hospital some days later. "

You pleaded guilty to the offence and the sentencing judge noted that you were sentenced ' on the basis that your action was reckless and that you did not intend to cause her any serious injury'. However, he also noted that you 'deprived this young woman of her life and caused immeasurable grief to her family'". The Judge went on to deal with the Applicant's criminal history:

"You have a substantial previous offending history with a large number of convictions, mainly for acquisitive offences, including dwelling burglaries. However, you also have a previous conviction for manslaughter. In 2001, when you were 19 years old, you got into a fight in a pub. You had joined in to help your brother and the two of you then punched and kicked the victim, killing him. For that offence you were sentenced to four years' YOI [(Youth Offending Institution)] detention . You also have been convicted of criminal damage, a Public Order Act offence and possession of an air weapon when under the age of 14. "

You have a poor record of compliance in the community. You have breached community orders and committed offences on bail. As well as breaching your licence and being recalled to custody on this sentence, you were recalled twice on a previous sentence. "You committed the index offence some 13 months after you were released from prison on the sentence imposed for the earlier manslaughter."

[8]The present Panel noted that the Applicant's case had been considered by five previous panels of the Parole Board. The Relevant Law Irrationality

[9]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 the following way:

" 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.

[10]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. "

[11]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).

[12]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.

[13]What is established by these authorities, which are of course binding on the Parole Board, is that it is not for me when deciding an irrationality challenge on a reconsideration, to substitute my view for that of the panel who had the opportunity to see the witnesses and evaluate all of the evidence. Therefore, it is important that it should be clearly understood that it is only if I decide that the decision of the panel did not come within the range of reasonable conclusions that could be reached on all of the evidence, that I should allow this application on the grounds of irrationality.

[14]Panels of the Board are wholly independent and are not obliged to adopt the opinions and recommendations of professional witnesses. In the DSD case the court made it clear that in deciding whether a decision of a panel was irrational due deference had to be given to the expertise of the panel in making decisions relating to parole. A panel's duty is to make its own risk assessment and to evaluate the likely effectiveness of any proposed risk management plan. This will necessarily require a panel to test and assess all of the evidence and decide what evidence it accepts and what evidence it rejects. While the views of professional witnesses must of course be properly considered by a panel considering release, the panel is not, as I have said, bound to accept their assessments. Procedural unfairness

[15]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 focuses on the actual decision.

[16]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.

[17]The overriding objective is to ensure that the Applicant's case was dealt with justly. Providing reasons

[18]As a matter of law, a panel's reasons must set out why they made the decision that they did. A panel must make clear the reasons why it is disagreeing with the assessment of the witness or witnesses.

[19]The giving of reasons by a decision maker was described in Breen v The Amalgamated Engineering Union

[1971] 2 QB 75

as "one of the fundamentals of good administration" . When reasons are provided, they may indicate that a decision maker has made an error or failed to take a relevant factor into account. As I understand the principles of public law engaged in this application, an absence of reasons does not automatically give rise to an inference that the decision maker has no good reason for the decision. Neither is it necessary for every factor to be dealt with explicitly for the reason to be legally adequate in public law.

[20]The way in which a panel fulfils its duty to give reasons will vary depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. For example, if a panel is going to reject the unanimous evidence of professional witnesses then detailed reasons will be required. In the case of Wells, the court observed: "The duty to give reasons is heightened when the decision maker is faced with expert evidence which the panel appears, implicitly at least, to be rejecting".

[21]In DSD the Court considered the way a panel of the Board is obliged to undertake the evaluation of risk as follows:

"117.The evaluation of risk, central to the Parole Board's judicial function is in part inquisitorial. It is fully entitled, indeed obliged, to undertake a proactive role in the examining of all available evidence and the submissions advanced...The individual members of a panel, through their training and experience, possess or have acquired particular skills and expertise in the complex realm of risk assessment. "118.The courts have emphasised on numerous occasions the importance and complexity of this role, and how slow they should be to interfere with the exercise of judgment in this specialist domain...." "133.A risk assessment in a complex case is multi-factorial, multi-dimensional and at the end of the day quintessentially a matter of judgment for the panel itself."

[22]It follows that when considering the decision made in this case and whether the decision can properly and fairly be described as irrational, I must keep well in mind that it is the panel and not me who had the opportunity to question the witnesses and to make up their own minds what evidence to accept and what evidence to reject. My function is to decide whether the panel in this case erred in law or reached a decision that was unreasonable in some respect. Error of law

[23]An administrative decision is unlawful under the broad heading of illegality if the panel fails to fulfil a legal duty which would include giving adequate reasons for a decision. Reconsideration as a discretionary remedy

[24]Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. That means that, even if an error of law, or irrationality, 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 circumstances of the case, the potential for a different decision being 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 treatment of allegations

[25]Because the Applicant submits that the Panel was in error in the way it approached and dealt with allegations that were made that significantly contributed to the Applicant's recall, it is necessary before leaving my summary of the relevant law to consider the approach in law that a panel of the Board must take when deciding whether or not to direct the release of a prisoner on licence when it is required to consider relevant allegations made about the prisoner which have not been determined, either by the Board or some other judicial body to be either proved or disproved on the balance of probabilities. The law on this issue is settled because of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pearce

[2023] UKSC 13

. Following that Judgment there was helpful guidance provided by the Parole Board. Because of its importance I set out the Supreme Court's conclusions set out in paragraph 87 of the Judgment: We summarise our conclusions as follows:(i) "There is no general legal rule that in making a risk assessment the Board must adopt a two-stage process of making findings of fact on the balance of probabilities and then treating only those matters on which it has made findings of fact as relevant to the assessment of risk.

(ii) The Board's task is to address whether the safety of members of the public requires that the prisoner should remain confined. In so doing, the Board must have regard to the consequences of its decision on the interests of the prisoner, and the hardship he may suffer if he no longer needs to be confined in order to protect the public.

(iii) There is no rule of substantive fairness, akin to a legitimate expectation, which requires the Board to have regard only to found facts in its assessment of risk.

(iv) What procedural fairness requires of the Board in its impartial performance of its statutory remit is determined by the statutory terms of that remit and the wider legal context of the common law.

(v) If weight is to be given to an allegation of criminal or other misbehaviour in the risk assessment, the Board should first attempt to investigate the facts to enable it to make findings on the truthfulness of the allegation. If, as may often be the case despite its efforts to obtain the needed information, the Board is not able to make such a finding, it should investigate the facts to make findings as to the surrounding circumstances of the allegation which may or may not point to behaviour by the prisoner which is relevant to the assessment of risk.

(vi) In some circumstances, however, the Board may not be able to make findings of fact as to the truth of an allegation either because of an inability to obtain sufficiently reliable evidence or because it would be unfair to expect the prisoner to give an answer to the allegation when he is facing criminal or prison disciplinary proceedings in relation to that allegation.

(vii) In such circumstances the Board, having regard to public safety, may take into account the allegation or allegations and give it or them such weight as it considers appropriate in a holistic assessment of all the information before it, where it is concerned that there is a serious possibility that those allegations may be true. But the Board must proceed with considerable caution in this exercise because of the consequences of its decision on the prisoner. Procedural fairness requires the Board to give the prisoner the opportunity to make submissions about how the Board ought to proceed. There may be circumstances where, because of the inadequacy of the information available to the Board, it concludes that it should not take account of an allegation at all. There may also be circumstances where the information is less than would be desired, but the allegation causes sufficient concern as to risk that the Board treats it as relevant. Its assessment of the weight to be attached to an allegation is subject to the constraints of public law rationality.

(viii) Thus, a failure to make findings of fact where it was reasonably practicable to do so or an irrational reliance on insubstantial allegations could be a ground of a successful public law challenge." My approach

[26]It follows from my summary of the relevant law that the reconsideration mechanism is not a process where I am required to indicate whether or not I would have reached the same or a different conclusion from that reached by a panel. What lies at the heart of my determination of this application is whether I am satisfied that the conclusions reached by the Panel are justified by all of the evidence they considered and whether those conclusions have been adequately explained. If I were not so satisfied, then it would be open to me to decide that the Panel's conclusions were not within the range of reasonable responses and therefore had resulted in an error of law. The reply on behalf of the Secretary of State

[27]The Respondent has indicated via email that no representations are made on his behalf on this application. That said, it is appropriate to note that during the course of the review, following the hearing on 18 March 2025 and following the hearing on 13 February 2026 the Respondent provided detailed written submissions setting out his position, which of course I have considered in detail alongside the written submissions provided on behalf of the Applicant. The Panel's decision

[28]It is appropriate now to focus on the decision of the Panel in some detail in order to provide some context for the submissions made on behalf of the Applicant. The Panel's 16-page decision of course has to be considered alongside the content of the dossier as a whole with particular attention being given to the reports prepared by the witnesses who gave evidence to the panel in addition to the Applicant himself. Given that I am concerned with an application that relates only with the legality and in particular the rationality of the panel's decision it is not part of my role to reconsider the panel's factual conclusions based on the evidence it heard and saw. In that respect I am dependent upon the summaries of that evidence provided by the panel's decision.

[29]The decision is divided into four sections headed as follows: Section 1: Analysis of Offending Behaviour (The Past); Section 2: Analysis of Evidence of Change (The Present); Section 3: Analysis of the Manageability of Risk (The Future) and Section 4: Conclusions. Section (1) The Past

[30]In recording the context and framework of the present review the Panel had set out the dates upon which the Applicant was released into the community following oral hearings conducted by differently constituted panels as follows: · Recall 1 : Released 23 November 2016 Licence revoked 13 June 2017 (therefore, approx. seven months in the community) · Recall 2 : Released 12 September 2018 Licence revoked 17 January 2019 (approx. four months in the community) · Recall 3 : Released 28 October 2019 Licence revoked 15 January 2020 (approx. three months in the community) · Recall 4 : Released 22 October 2020 Licence revoked 24 April 2021 (approx. six months in the community) Recall 5 : Released 9 April 2024 Licence revoked 29 May 2024 (approx. seven weeks in the community)

[31]By way of an overview of the history and the context of the current review the Panel observed as follows:

"The present panel agrees with the analysis which has been made by earlier panels. [The Applicant] has told panels that at the time of the index offence he drank alcohol every day and was using drugs including heroin and cocaine. [The Applicant's] attitudes and beliefs and use of general violence and intimate partner violence disinhibited by alcohol and drugs contributed to his offending. He has a strong anti- authority streak which means he has severe issues with compliance and had broken licence conditions when in the community."

Section (2) The Present

[32]The Panel next considered the Applicant's earlier releases and recalls and the circumstances of his latest recall. This is by some distance the most detailed part of the decision.

[33]The Panel began by dealing with the period prior to the Applicant's first release, noting that in 2013 he was in open prison when discovered to have been out of bounds and later in April 2014 he had spent a whole night out of his cell, which led police to inform the family of the victim that he had absconded. In fact, he had probably not left the prison and surrendered himself the next morning. In the Panel's view this was an example of the Applicant not complying with rules and not understanding the effect and importance of the breach. The latest release and recall

[34]For obvious reasons the circumstances that led to this recall were examined very closely in the Panel's decision. It forms a very significant part of the grounds for this application for a reconsideration. In my judgment, it is necessary to set out the Panel's detailed summary of the evidence in this regard which I have taken from their decision:

" [The Applicant] has been released and subsequently recalled to prison on 5 occasions. The issues have been a lack of compliance with licence conditions and a return to drug and alcohol misuse. In 2021 he went missing from the [Approved Premises (AP)] . On 23 April 2021, he left the AP in [the city], leaving clothes and property there, but he did not return. For five days, he remained in the [city] area, waiting for a benefit payment, then on 28 April, after taking £200 from his bank, he returned to the [nearby] borough and was detained by Police at a house in the...area. It is notable that the...area nearby is where the victim's family lives... and [a family member] lives in [this] area as well. "

In 2022 a panel of the Parole Board did not direct release but recommended open conditions. [The Applicant] was progressed to open conditions at [Prison A], but he absconded on 25 May 2022 by walking through the prison gate and was apprehended 3 days later. He received a sentence of 26 weeks imprisonment. This conviction, as well as his night out of his cell in 2014 and the 2021 AP absconding renders him ineligible for consideration of open conditions . " [The Applicant] was released for the 5th time on 9 April 2024 after a Parole Board review. He was released to approved premises . At this point, he was using [a different name] . His compliance was problematic almost immediately. On 17 April 2024 he received both an AP Manager verbal warning and a compliance improvement letter, both relating to him returning late to the AP past his curfew and providing breathalyser samples showing use of alcohol. On 22 April he was issued with his first Decision Not to Recall letter as to breaches of his licence. He had returned late to the AP under the influence of alcohol, failing to keep a National Standards appointment with his Offender Manager earlier that day and changing his mobile number without notifying staff. On 10 May 2024 he was issued a second Decision Not to Recall letter, again stemming from excessive alcohol consumption and returning late to the AP and also in relation to cannabis being discovered in his room by staff during a routine room search. "On 13 May 2024 he was placed onto an Improvement Plan by the AP Manager, due to concerns regarding his continued poor behaviour and excessive drinking. On 22 May 2024 a Licence Compliance meeting was undertaken with [the Applicant] via Teams. Concerns regarding his behaviour were clearly put to [the Applicant] , who acknowledged his understanding. It was made clear to him that whilst every effort was being made to support him, he had so far not demonstrated the expected and necessary improvement to his behaviour and was placing himself at risk of being recalled as a result. " [The Applicant] was apparently aggrieved about his perceived treatment in comparison with other AP residents. He had also commenced a new intimate relationship with [Ms X]. There was some concern by his supervisors that he might well seek an opportunity to abscond to escape the level of monitoring and he was subject to. He was particularly disgruntled about being informed that his IPP sentence would not be automatically revoked following release, as he had believed." The search of the Applicant's room "Finally, a routine room search was undertaken by AP staff on 28 May 2024. As a result of this search, two clear snap bags containing white powder residue was discovered. An analysis of the white powder showed it to be cocaine and oxycodone, both controlled substances. [The Applicant] was recalled on 29 May [ 2024 ] . Following his arrest on 29 May 2024, AP staff packed up his personal belongings. During the course of doing so, a quantity of cannabis which had not [been] present the day before, was discovered, along with a bottle of whisky"

[35]The Panel confirmed that in assessing the circumstances of the recall and the allegation made because of the search of the Applicant's room, the information available all came from the dossier and the evidence given at the oral hearing. The Applicant's evidence

[36]The Panel then set out the following summary of the evidence given to them by the Applicant, which summary again I take from the decision:

"Differing accounts were given by [the Applicant] as to how the cocaine came to be in his room. After recall, when asked about the drugs found in his room at the AP. [The Applicant] denied that the drugs were his. He stated that the snap-bags found must have been left in his room by one of two other AP residents who had been regularly coming to his room seeking cannabis from him. He said that at some point before his room was searched, one of these residents had done just that. [The Applicant] was gaming on his PlayStation and so instructed the resident to help himself to cannabis. He provided conflicting information regarding this box, at first stating that the resident had taken cannabis from it and must have inadvertently placed the snap-bags inside without thinking. When asked why he would not have noticed the snap-bags prior to their discovery by AP staff, [the Applicant] gave a different account, stating that he keeps his cannabis in his tobacco pouch and that the box only contains dregs of old tobacco and so he never thinks to look inside it. "

There was another version given to the panel by [the Applicant] . He said that the cocaine must have been "planted" in his room by someone who wished him to be recalled. He told the panel that he did not know who this was, but this was the only explanation as he had reflected on this. He also linked this to the fact that someone had made a call to the police saying that he had assaulted a woman. [The Applicant] told the panel that the police had taken no further action. He denied that this person was [Ms X] and she had told the police that there had been no assault on her."

[37]The decision then turned to consider how the Panel should approach this important issue and its relevance: "The panel considered the issue as to whether [the Applicant] knowingly was in possession of the cocaine in his room at the AP. This allegation is relevant to the assessment of risk. A panel will only be able to make a finding of fact when:• It has a reasonably sufficient body of information on which it can properly make a finding of fact on the balance of probabilities; and

• The prisoner has had the opportunity to test and/or make submissions about the information. The allegation and the surrounding circumstances of the finding of the cocaine formed a basis for testing the reliability of [the Applicant 's] evidence on this matter".

[38]The Panel next provided its own assessment of the evidence given to them by the Applicant:

"The panel heard the account given by [the Applicant] and found the account to be varied, hesitant, lacking in detail and lacking in credibility. The account was, in the view of the panel, designed to answer the issue by throwing blame for the appearance of the cocaine on other persons, possibly who had a grudge against him. "

Taking account of all the evidence, and applying the test of fairness to the issue, the panel considered that there was not sufficient evidence to make a finding of fact that it is more likely than not that [the Applicant] brought the cocaine into his own room at the AP. However, this is a relevant allegation where the panel has not been able to make a finding of fact but consider that there is a serious possibility that the allegation may be true and, as such, decide to give it enough weight as they think is appropriate. "The panel found the changing versions as to the cocaine troubling. If there was certainty that the cocaine belonged to [the Applicant] , then this would indicate an intention to use a Class A drug with raised risk as a result. There is no evidence that [the Applicant] had used cocaine at this time as he had been drug tested with negative result. The panel did not have enough information to make a finding of fact as to the cocaine, but [the Applicant 's ] changing versions relating to the cocaine find and his casual attitude to cannabis use were concerning." The Panel's findings

[39]The Panel found that what it described as the "undisputed facts" where that(i) cocaine was found in the Applicant's room at the AP

(ii) a routine search was undertaken by staff on 28 May 2024 and as a result of the search two clear snap bags containing white powder residue were discovered

(iii) an analysis of the powder showed it to be cocaine and oxycodone, both controlled substances

(iv) the Applicant admitted breaking the rules by taking cannabis and had been issued with compliance letters

(v) the Applicant had used cocaine in the past and

(vi) there was no evidence that he had used cocaine on this occasion. The Panel's assessment of relevance

[40]The Panel went on to determine how the issue of the cocaine find was relevant to the decision regarding parole and what weight should be given to the findings they had made. They said: "The panel considered that the breach of licence conditions was significant, and that having found [ the Applicant] to be dishonest in his account to the panel during the oral hearing that considerable weight is attached to this".

[41]The Panel then recorded that it had to consider the Applicant's recall to prison following the case of Calder

[2015] EWCA Civ 1050

. In this regard they found as follows:

" [The Applicant] breached his licen c e conditions by taking drugs and breaching curfew. The panel found that [the Applicant] was given plenty of opportunity to desist from drugs whilst in the AP and that he deliberately chose to continue drug use. He chose not to take the opportunities to change his behaviour after he was warned of the consequences. The panel accepts the COM's [(Community Offender Manager)] opinion that the poor thinking skills, failure to abstain from substances and breach of licence conditions indicated that his risk could not be managed and consequently concluded that the decision to recall him was appropriate."

Custodial behaviour following recall

[42]This aspect of the evidence and its treatment by the Panel was also the subject of submissions on behalf of the Applicant.

[43]The Panel noted that following his most recent recall the Applicant initially struggled back in custody. The Applicant's previous Prison Offender Manager's (POM) evidence was that the Applicant was engaging in meetings and discussions and was presenting as open regarding his progress and difficulties in the community. He had been admitted to a Progressive Regime where he was making progress. The Panel noted two " highly favourable" reports from a specialized unit regarding the Applicant. That said the POM is recorded as describing the difficulties she was having making a clear recommendation to the Panel, observing that while doing well in custody the Applicant had "considerable issues in putting his learning in place in the community".

[44]Alongside that evidence the POM stressed that there was in effect no incidents of negative behaviour and a good number of positive behaviour comments since his return to custody, several of which were for providing negative oral drug swab tests. In addition, the POM was able to point to positive entries relating to employment where the Applicant had been highly commended for his standard of work. As a result, the Panel were able to record that the POM's conclusion was a "guarded support" for release based upon there being sufficient support in the community. The Panel noted that unfortunately the POM went on long-term sick leave and by the time of an oral hearing listed in September 2025, a stand-in POM was not available but a second stand-in POM was available, who prepared a report and gave evidence at the oral hearing in February 2026. The new POM described the Applicant as fully engaging and like other professionals saw a contrast between the Applicant's compliance in custody and his conduct in the community. The new POM was supporting release and was able to tell the Panel of a positive development that had taken place on the morning of the oral hearing whereby the Applicant had been found suitable to join a rehabilitation placement for drug and alcohol addiction which would take effect immediately on release.

[45]The COM had provided the Panel with a report in 2025 in which she considered that the Applicant needed to complete further work regarding alcohol misuse including how this affected his behaviour when under the influence. The COM had updated her report in August 2025 indicating that at that stage no formal recommendation could be made pending the conclusion of a progressive regime course that the Applicant was currently undertaking. Unfortunately, the Panel noted that the COM also went on long-term sick and was not available for the hearing in September 2025. In due course a further stand-in was appointed and was in place for the hearing in February 2026. It was his opinion that alcohol is a gateway drug that leads the Applicant to misusing other substances. The Applicant's evidence on risk related issues.

[46]Again, in light of certain submissions made on behalf of the Applicant it is necessary to set out fully how the Panel summarized this important evidence:

" [The Applicant] has been before 5 Parole Panels previously, so he was well aware of the procedure and the questioning which would take place. He was offered the opportunity to talk about his index offending, specifically the two manslaughter convictions, but he said he had nothing to add, "

I've said more than enough on both". This was somewhat surprising to the panel. However, he...understood the emotions raised by the [family] of his victim. "On his last release on licence, he frankly told the panel that he was drinking alcohol within 2 days of release at a pub with his friend.... He had a couple of pints with a meal, and this was a pattern which continued. He said that he thought this was not a problem as he felt he was in control of his drinking. As to cannabis, he started using this at the AP after a couple of weeks as everyone was smoking "weed" there. He said that he had a back injury which caused him pain and he told himself that it was better to use cannabis than pain killers. He said he told his COM that he was using cannabis, and [the Applicant] said that he was told that he should try coming off cannabis. The staff at the AP were not happy at the widespread use of cannabis. [The Applicant] said that he was only using a couple of spliffs, and a £20 bag would last him all week. He did not consider that this raised his risk. He said, "I don't think it impacts on risk." He did acknowledge that there were negative effects of cannabis use as it made him unsociable, and he wanted to stay in his room. He went on to say that although he had spoken of his cannabis use to his COM but he did not discuss the negative effects. He said that he did not get on with his COM. He said that he felt "on his back foot" as he needed to feel supported. He went on to say that he opened up to [a family member] who told him to stop using cannabis. " [The Applicant] was challenged by the panel about his understanding that cannabis did not raise his risk and he was referred to an earlier OASys report in which he had acknowledged that cannabis and alcohol raised his risk, particularly when used together. "As to alcohol, [the Applicant] said that as time went on, he was drinking maybe 5-6 pints during the day. His friends, he said, were in pubs all the time and many were alcoholics. However, when he met [Ms X], he did not drink as much, but she was a binge drinker. He said that the COM knew that he was drinking. He also said that he told his COM about [Ms X]. "He said he had met [Ms X] in a pub. He enjoyed going to the pub and drinking and flirting with women. He said the relationship with [her] was good, fun, and they had no arguments. He had contact with her every day. He strongly denied any assault upon her and said that he believed someone made a vindictive allegation. The relationship with [Ms X] has ended and he said he was really sad that it ended, but he could not stay with her as she got "bladdered" every couple of months. " [The Applicant] said that he had drunk vodka in the AP. The whisky came from another resident who had just left the bottle in his room. " [The Applicant] was asked what had changed since his last release. He said that he has learned to ask for help whilst on the Aspire unit. He said that he had enquired as to whether he would be eligible for a place with [a] Recovery [project] which is a substance misuse organisation. "He had been accepted by [the] Recovery [project] in 2020 after the Parole Panel of 2020 directed release. This followed from a similar substance misuse organisation placement at [a]... project, who provided [the Applicant] with supported accommodation as well as drug rehabilitation support following a release in 2019. Unfortunately, neither of these placements had worked for [the Applicant] due to his behaviour. [The Applicant] was pleased that he had been able to have the interview with... [a housing project] on the same morning as the oral hearing. "He said that his attitude had changed having been on the Aspire unit. He said he had done as much work as he could. He said he was sick of being in jail. As to relationships, [the Applicant] said that he was not going to look for another relationship. He said he would have friends who perhaps would go for a drink, but he would be teetotal. He said that the AP would be different as it was an IPP AP. [The housing project] would be positive, and he could continue with his job at Recycling Lives.... He said his [family member] was buzzing at the idea that his IPP licence could be reviewed and that he could make a fresh start. " [The Applicant] accepted that he did well with rules in custody. He did not agree that he did not do well in the community. He said that he had complied with his licence conditions. He said that he thought there were too many rules in the community in the past. He said that the present risk management plan [(RMP)] he had set up [sic]. He did not like being stuck in an AP and being bored and that he had gone to the pub to be sociable. [The Applicant] said that he had put an action plan in place. He has accepted that he cannot manage drink and by going to recovery he would have major support. "He said that cannabis would not be an issue. He said he does not want it. Last time in the community other residents would come into his room and smoke and he would smoke with them. This would not happen in future. He said he would focus on health and have his gym routine." The Panel's assessment of the Applicant's evidence

[47]The Panel then provided its assessment on the evidence the Applicant had given:

" The panel found that [the Applicant] was assertive and confident in his evidence to the panel. He was proud of the work he had done on the Aspire Unit, but the panel gained the impression that he did not consider that he accepted that he needed to change his attitudes. He did not accept that his behaviour had caused his recall and there were strands of blame towards other people. He blamed his COM for not understanding him and being restrictive. He blamed other people at the AP for getting him into trouble and leaving alcohol and drugs in his room. He blamed his ex-partner for binge drinking and drawing him into an alcohol fuelled lifestyle. Moreover, he did not consider that cannabis raised his risk, which was concerning."

[48]The Panel addressed the issue of risk of serious harm which it found to be high should the Applicant continue to use substances in the community.

[49]Finally, in this section the Panel considered protective factors that is to say those which may make it less likely that the Applicant would cause serious harm. It concluded that the protective factors that are present are external, noting that in the COM's report dated 12 January 2026, the COM had said that there are limited protective factors in place in the community at present and that this remains the case. The Panel observed that it was concerned as to whether there had been development of internal protective factors as far as the Applicant was concerned and that this was in its view a focus of attention for the Panel. Section (3) The Future

[50]The Panel noted that there was what it described as "guarded support for release at this stage.". It recorded that the POM was impressed with the Applicant's progress since his recall, it being her opinion that the RMP with initial residence at an AP to be sufficient to manage his risk.

[51]The Panel regarded the offer made on the morning of the oral hearing for the Applicant to reside at a supported housing project which aimed to support the recovery of individuals with substance abuse history, to be "a big step" as he had been accepted at the same place in October 2020 on his fourth release from custody, when his bed was withdrawn after a short period of time after it was discovered that he was drinking in his room. The panel noted that the POM had said that this proposal had been put forward after some hesitation but had been because this placement would follow a stay in an AP rather than be a direct release to the project.

[52]The Panel recorded that both COMs were each supportive of release. Another had revised her recommendation of no release, having earlier expressed the view that the Applicant needed to change his attitude and thinking towards substance misuse. By August 2025 in her report that COM expressed herself to be encouraged by the work the Applicant had engaged in, which led her by the oral hearing to be supportive of release.

[53]The Panel's view of the RMP was that it contained high levels of support and monitoring in conjunction with the licence conditions. The Panel found the RMP to be certainly robust and is in their opinion to be "a credit to the agencies who have worked to put together a tailored plan for [the Applicant] ."

[54]The Panel added this important qualification to that commendation:

"The issue the panel have to consider is whether all of these external management factors will be sufficient to manage [the Applicant's] risk given that internal controls are the major concern"

Section (4) Conclusions

[55]The Panel made it perfectly clear that it had considered all of the evidence written and oral, the submissions made by the legal representatives of the Applicant and the Respondent and had considered and applied the Codified Public Protection Test which it set out in terms.

[56]The panel then set out the following matters that it had taken into account in its decision when considering future risks. I set them out in full: i. "Alcohol and drug misuse are primary risk factors. ii. [The Applicant] has committed two offences of Manslaughter in different circumstances, one for violence in a public place and the second for intimate partner violence. His IPP sentence was imposed for the second of these offences. iii. The panel considers the risk to the public, which is likely to be greatest where, after feeling slighted or threatened he becomes embroiled in a fight whilst under the influence. A risk to an intimate partner could be as a result of a deteriorating relationship and raised emotional levels. iv. Circumstances that could make these scenarios more likely or imminent are [the Applicant] abusing alcohol and or drugs and being roused to anger. Violence, association with anti-social peers and connection with drinking culture are all features of [the Applicant's] previous offending. v. [The Applicant] has been released and recalled 5 times on his sentence with poor compliance and substance misuse a recurrent theme. vi. However, there has been no actual violence by [the Applicant] and he has been recalled due to poor compliance and substance misuse. vii. The panel find that previously his internal controls were lacking. [Panel's Emphasis] viii. Since recall, [the Applicant] has engaged with the Progression Unit in order to help him change his attitude and thinking towards substance misuse so that he could develop internal controls to maintain abstinence. [Panel's Emphasis ] ix. [The Applicant] reacts well to the prison regime and his custodial behaviour is very good. x. [The Applicant] has undertaken work whilst at the Progression Unit at [Prison B] and this has received positive feedback. xi. The evidence from professionals is that core risk reduction work has been completed. xii. Professionals support release on the risk management plan xiii. The panel find the risk management plan to be robust and incorporating release accommodation to a suitable AP, move-on accommodation with drug recovery support, employment throughout and licence conditions which are necessary and proportionate. xiv. The panel find that the [ risk management plan is significantly based upon external factors of control. [Panels emphasis] xv. Previous concerns have been raised as to [the Applicant 's] lack of insight into his risk factors, his attitude towards alcohol and drugs, and his unwillingness to accept the need to affect positive change and sustain it. xvi. The panel carefully considered how [the Applicant] has changed since his recall and since completing the Progression Unit programmes. xvii. The panel found that [the Applicant] continues to show a lack of insight into his risk factors despite the work that he has undertaken at the Progression Unit . His attitude towards alcohol and cannabis from his evidence was concerning. He told the panel that he would remain abstinent in the community in the future but his own use of alcohol he did not consider to be a risk. He fails to see the link that alcohol has upon his thinking skills and how this is linked to his offending behaviours. [Panel's Emphasis] xviii. [The Applicant] did not consider cannabis to be a factor raising his risk within the community. He told the panel that he would not use cannabis in the future but there was no acceptance by him that it had raised his risk in the past. xix. The panel considered [the Applicant 's] likelihood of compliance with the proposed licence conditions. [The Applicant 's] compliance in the community has been poor. He accepts use of alcohol and cannabis whilst denying the use of Class A drugs, but he fails to see how alcohol and cannabis can raise his risk. [Panel's Emphasis] xx. The panel did not accept the version given by [the Applicant] that the drugs found in his room at the AP necessarily belonged to another resident. The panel did not have enough information to make a finding of fact as to the cocaine, but [the Applicant's] changing versions relating to the cocaine find and his casual attitude to cannabis use were concerning. [Panel's Emphasis] xxi. The panel considered the evidence as to whether there remains outstanding work to be undertaken. The panel is not instructed to suggest particular programs. Evidence from professionals was that all core risk reduction work has been completed. Gaps in understanding risk factors have been identified by the panel and this would indicate that there is outstanding work regarding risk, relapse prevention and consolidation of Thinking Skills. In those circumstances the panel disagreed with the evidence of witnesses as to the risk remaining. The panel did not have sufficient material to decide as to whether there remains outstanding work regarding intimate partner violence." [Panel's Emphasis] The Submissions on behalf of the Applicant

[57]Having set out the background to and the context of this case; the facts leading to the Applicant's two convictions for manslaughter; the previous releases and recalls; the current recall; the applicable legal framework in relation to reconsideration; the approach of the Parole Board as far as the approach to allegations are concerned; a summary of the evidence the panel heard and the findings and conclusions of the Panel, it is now appropriate to focus upon the grounds on which the Applicant seeks a different outcome via a reconsideration of the Panel's decision. Generally

[58]The challenge is largely directed to the Panel's findings and reasoning underpinning the refusal to direct release. At the outset of the Applicant's submissions, in support of the contention that the decision of the panel should be reconsidered on the grounds that it was arrived at as a result of procedural unfairness and irrationality, is the following proposition:

"The essence of the application is that the panel accepted a number of matters which strongly support release and yet failed to explain in any satisfactory or coherent way why confinement remained necessary for the protection of the public"

[59]What follows are over 30 submissions. In order to make this decision as clear as I can I have isolated the matters that appear to me to be of importance. I wish to make it absolutely clear that I have of course read and considered carefully all of the submissions made by the parties throughout this review and this application. If a particular matter is not referred to it must not be thought that it has been overlooked.

[60]The Applicant's submissions can in my judgment be summarised under six Grounds: Ground 1 The Panel failed to provide adequate and sufficient reasons for refusing to direct release in circumstances where the Panel had accepted that(i) all the professional witnesses supported release

(ii) the proposed RMP was robust and tailored

(iii) the Applicant had not committed any act of violence when released into the community (or in prison) and

(iv) employment and accommodation was available upon release. Ground 2 In relation to the finding of prohibited drugs in the possession of the Applicant in his accommodation, the Panel (i) erred in the way in which it treated the finding that the Applicant had been dishonest in his evidence and (ii) erred in finding there was a proper basis for allowing the issue of dishonesty to carry the weight it was given. Ground 3 With further reference to the finding of prohibited drugs, it is submitted that the Applicant was never " squarely confronted " with the proposition that the Panel might reject his account regarding the finding of the drugs, thus depriving him of an opportunity of addressing the point. It is submitted that as a result there has been procedural unfairness in the conduct of the oral hearing. Ground 4 The Panel failed to properly engage with the evidence that the Applicant had moved away from the use of violence. Ground 5 The decision failed to give sufficient credit to the Applicant for the extensive work completed by him since recall. Ground 6 It being the case that the Applicant had attracted positive reports and generally maintained good custodial conduct and behaviour, the Panel failed to explain why these matters attracted so little weight in the Panel's final decision. Discussion

[61]There is no doubt that the Applicant's attitude and conduct in the community when contrasted with his attitude and conduct when in custody played a central part in this review and in the Panel's decision.

[62]The Respondent's concerns at the oral hearing focused on the Applicant's immediate and rapid deterioration following his release on 9 April 2024. It was submitted by the Respondent that the pattern over the period of just seven weeks of the Applicant's fifth release on licence was consistent with his conduct over all of his previous releases in 2016, 2018, 2019 and 2020, amounting to what was described as "a clear and entrenched trajectory". It was further submitted, in effect, that there was nothing in the evidence given by the Applicant which suggested that there had been a meaningful shift in that pattern of behaviour.

[63]It was submitted on the Applicant's behalf that while accepting the Panel is not bound to follow the recommendations of professional witnesses, it had failed repeatedly to provide cogent and rational reasons for so doing. There were a number of issues that the Panel had to consider in respect of this unusual and serious case of a prisoner convicted twice of causing the unlawful violent death of another in very different circumstances. It is appropriate to highlight four examples before turning to a more detailed consideration of the Applicant's Grounds: i. What has been clearly established by the evidence is that the Applicant's custodial conduct and performance had in the judgment of five different panels of the Parole Board over a period of approaching eight years been sufficient to justify his release on each occasion. What is also clearly established is that each of those releases has been cut short (the last very short) because his good custodial behaviour had never translated into safe behaviour on release. ii. It is not disputed on the Applicant's behalf that this unfortunate history has repeated itself with another justified and lawful recall to prison, this time after only seven weeks in the community. iii. The Panel saw and heard the Applicant's evidence during which he said that things would be different this time because he had now recognised that he must stop using alcohol or drugs. The difficulty that the Panel were presented with in this regard was that he had made similar assertions in previous reviews, yet on returning to the community returned to misusing both alcohol and proscribed drugs. iv. A particularly important issue in this case significantly (and rightly) relied upon on the Applicant's behalf, concerns the very positive, well-structured proposed RMP and extensive licence conditions. Resolution of this issue required the Panel to again address the marked contrast between the Applicant's custodial conduct and how he has behaved once in the community. The Respondent's submission on this issue was that the Applicant had been the subject of considerable external controls yet has still deteriorated rapidly on release. The Panel had to consider whether the proposed measures to manage the Applicant in the community were sufficient even when they had been further reinforced, relying as they do on internal discipline and self-management both of which had in the past been areas where (it was accepted) the Applicant had really struggled. That issue led inevitably to consideration of whether the panel was prepared to accept whether further core risk reduction work was necessary prior to release as submitted by the Respondent.

[64]The central question I must answer is whether the Panel did carry out the appropriate balancing exercise fairly when reaching a decision that necessarily placed substantial weight on the Applicant's custodial conduct and his conduct once in the community. In order to answer that question, I have set out substantial parts of the Panel's decision. A careful reading of which establishes in my view that this is a case where there clearly was a careful balancing exercise undertaken, the primary goal of which was to protect the public. The Panel clearly indicated it had carefully considered all the information in a very substantial dossier and all the evidence it saw and heard. The Panel summarised positive features and identified issues which it was unable to resolve in favour of release.

[65]I find that the issues identified by the Panel were all relevant matters to take into account for the reasons they clearly set out. The weighing of each and all of them was for the Panel. I do not find that there was any procedural unfairness nor irrationality. This was in my view a final decision that the Panel was perfectly entitled to reach following a careful and holistic approach to all of the evidence. Put another way, I am satisfied that the decision came within the range of reasonable conclusions open to be reached by the Panel.

[66]I must now rule upon the Grounds that I have identified were made in support of this application. Ground 1

[67]I cannot accept that the Panel failed to provide adequate and sufficient reasons for not accepting the recommendations of the professional witnesses. In my judgment the Panel fully and thoroughly engaged with the professional's evidence and in doing so where at pains to explain why. Their approach was entirely consistent with the approach laid down by the High Court authorities that I have discussed above. In the case of DSD the court made it abundantly clear that in deciding whether a panel was irrational due deference had to be given to the expertise of the Panel in exercising their judgment in carrying out a risk assessment in a serious and complex case which was "multi - factorial, multi - dimensional and at the end of the day quintessentially a matter for the judgment of the panel itself".

[68]The Panel made it plain that the Applicant's response since recall was driven by a need to help him change his attitude and thinking towards substance and alcohol misuse so that he could develop internal controls to maintain abstinence. The Panel found the RMP necessary and proportionate and indeed commended those responsible for it. Nonetheless, in the Panel's opinion it remained significantly (if not entirely) grounded in external factors, which had not been sufficiently addressed given the Applicant's persistent and continuing lack of insight into his risk factors. The Panel were clearly very concerned that the Applicant's accepted use of alcohol and cannabis whilst denying the use of Class A drugs remained unresolved. For these and other reasons the Panel concluded that the Applicant's likelihood of compliance with proposed licence conditions was not at an appropriate level.

[69]I am unable to find that the Panel failed to take an appropriately proactive role in examining all of the available evidence and reaching evidence-based conclusions which were fully, clearly and comprehensively explained.

[70]This Ground fails. Grounds 2 and 3

[71]These two grounds can conveniently be taken together. As I understand the submission, it is that because the Panel found no evidence that the Applicant had actually taken any of the cocaine it follows that there was no proper basis for the Panel to make any finding against the Applicant, the only basis to do so being that he was, in the Panel's opinion less than honest in his evidence regarding the circumstances in which he was in possession of proscribed drugs.

[72]It is also submitted that there was a procedural impropriety and unfairness during the oral hearing resulting in the proceedings being fundamentally flawed and therefore unfair because the Panel improperly used the cocaine issue as the basis for a finding of dishonesty in circumstances where the Applicant: ... "was never squarely confronted with the proposition that the Panel might reject his account...so he was deprived of a fair opportunity to address the point which ultimately counted against him...."

[73]I find these submissions to be contrary to binding legal authority, contrary to the evidence and wholly without merit for the following reasons: a) First, the Panel in their decision correctly observed that the Applicant was well aware of the procedure regarding Parole Board review hearings. It follows, that the submission that a legally represented Applicant was or might have been unfairly taken by surprise to be asked by the Panel about the recovery of cocaine in his accommodation, which finding formed the basis of his recall to prison, is to say the least surprising and in my judgment unsustainable. b) Secondly, the propositions advanced on behalf of the Applicant wholly ignores the due deference to which every panel of the Board is entitled when its conclusions are contested. As made clear in the case of DSD the duty upon panels of the Parole Board when performing a judicial function to accept or reject evidence and draw from that acceptance or rejection reasonable, logically justifiable and lawful conclusions is beyond doubt. c) There is no doubt whatsoever that it was open to the Panel to find that the Applicant's evidence in this regard was incapable of belief and to draw conclusions based on that finding which were not in the Applicant's favour. That said, the only other matter to consider was whether the Panel went on the provide a rational evidence-based explanation as to why it had reached that adverse conclusion. On my reading of the decision, there cannot be any serious doubt that is precisely what the Panel did.

[74]I find there was no procedural irregularity - the suggestion there was or might have been is wholly misconceived.

[75]On the issue of the treatment by the Panel of the allegation of possession of prohibited drugs, I should add this. As the case of Pearce (see above) establishes there is no rule which requires a panel to have regard only to facts found on the balance of probabilities and then treat only those matters on which it has made a finding of fact as relevant to the assessment of risk. In this case, by way only of an observation, it seems to me that on all the evidence the Panel's conclusion that it was unable to find as a fact that the Applicant was in possession of the drugs was a generous one. That said, there can be no issue (and none is taken) that the Panel approached their task consistent with the judgment of the Supreme Court and The Parole Board Guidance on Allegations. Where the Panel regarded itself as not able to make a finding of fact it properly and fairly took the allegation into account and gave to it the weight that it considered appropriate as part of a holistic assessment of all the information before it. One of the matters considered was of course their conclusion that the Applicant had not given truthful evidence regarding the drugs.

[76]These Grounds both fail. Ground 4

[77]The submission made here is in effect that the Panel should have accepted that the Applicant had moved away from the use of violence. Reliance is placed on the fact that the Applicant has had several periods in the community and "there have been issues of compliance and substance misuse but there has been no further violence".

[78]With respect, this submission appears to beg the question. Predominantly, the recalls of the Applicant have all, in effect, been based upon a lack of insight and compliance on the Applicant's part and not any incident of violence. It has been the case that the professionals charged with responsibility for the Applicant in the community have on each recall acted to recall him because there has been an unacceptable increase in their professional opinion in his risk to the public. The public would not be protected if those charged with the onerous responsibility of monitoring and supporting a prisoner in the community were obliged to wait for a threat or an act of violence before acting. That much is clear and very well understood by panels of the Board.

[79]The Panel had good evidence of the absence of violence which had to be considered against the evidence as to whether there remained outstanding work to be undertaken in circumstances where the Panel had heard from the professionals that all core risk reduction work has been completed. In dealing with this submission it is appropriate to recall exactly what the Panel had to say in the final paragraph of the matters it took into account in reaching its final conclusion:

"Gaps in understanding risk have been identified by the panel and this would indicate that there is outstanding work regarding risk, relapse prevention and consolidation of thinking skills. In those circumstances the panel disagreed with the evidence of witnesses as to the risk remaining...."

[80]It cannot sensibly be argued that the Panel in any way failed to engage with the evidence in this regard. Indeed, in my judgment the exact opposite was the position.

[81]This Ground fails. Ground 5 and Ground 6

[82]These two Grounds may also conveniently be taken together. It is submitted in Ground 5 that the Panel failed to give sufficient credit to the Applicant for the work he had done since recall and in Ground 6 failed to explain why good reports and good custodial conduct attracted so little weight in the Panel's decision.

[83]Upon my reading of the decision as a whole, as I have mentioned more than once, it is clear that the Panel kept very well in mind the contrast between the Applicant's good custodial conduct and his conduct when in the community. This was the balancing exercise that was repeatedly considered. I note that in their submissions the Applicant's representatives agree that the Panel had accepted his progress in custody. That is clearly the position and as the dossier shows was usually the position when the Applicant had been returned to custody.

[84]I cannot accept the proposition that the Panel gave these positive aspects too little weight. First, that submission it overlooks the fact that matters of emphasis or weight to be given to a particular issue or aspect of the evidence are matters entirely for a panel. Secondly, there are several passages in the detailed decision that draw particular attention directly or by implication to positive aspects which the Panel had to, and in my view clearly did, weigh in the balance. For example, the fact that the Applicant engaged in all meetings, presented as being open in discussions regarding progress and his difficulties in the community. There are references to reports that he had continued to make progress on the Aspire Unit, meetings where positive progress was highlighted, his work with abstinence and work towards maintaining stable relationships and being open with professionals. His commended work in the specialised unit Recycling Lives which began after the adjournment of this review in March 2025 is emphasised.

[85]These Grounds both fail. Conclusions and Decision

[86]A critical timeline for the Panel to consider in this difficult and serious case was between 29 May 2024 when the Applicant was recalled and 13 February 2026 when the oral hearing was concluded. There was before them a very considerable amount of written evidence in the dossier together with the oral evidence of three professional witnesses and of course the Applicant himself. The question that lay at the heart of the hearing can perhaps best be summarised as being " What has changed ?" That is to say, could the Applicant demonstrate to the Panel that there had been any meaningful change in his internal thinking skills or were there still serious concerns that meant in their judgment he still had core risk reduction work outstanding?

[87]I am entirely satisfied that in this case an experienced panel (chaired by a judicial member) with commendable thoroughness and clarity provided a carefully constructed, balanced and fair-minded analysis of all the evidence and information before them. It is abundantly clear from the decision that the panel carried out the required balancing exercise taking into account every relevant aspect of this case. In my judgment the panel applied the established principles of law and practice and satisfied their public law duty to provide evidence-based reasons that adequately and sufficiently explained the conclusions that were reached.

[88]It cannot in my judgment be sensibly argued that this was a decision that no reasonable panel could have come to upon all of the evidence before them.

[89]For all the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the decision was procedurally unfair, unlawful nor irrational and accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused. HH Michael Topolski KC 21 May 2026