Guyatt, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 110 (15 May 2026) [2026] PBRA 110

PBRA
Guyatt, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 110 (15 May 2026)
[2026] PBRA 110 · 2026-01-26
[1]This is an application by Guyatt ('the Applicant') who is serving an extended determinate sentence ('EDS'). His application is for reconsideration of the decision of a Member Case Assessment ('MCA') panel of the Parole Board ('the Board') which on 26 January 2026 issued a decision not to direct his early release on licence. Background and history of the case[2]The Applicant is aged 30. He has been before the courts on many occasions for offences of one kind or another. Many of them involved threatening or violent behaviour. He has served a number of sentences (some in the community and some in custody). His compliance when in the community has been poor: he has offended whilst on bail, he has breached orders of the court, he has been recalled from periods on licence during previous sentences, and he has spent time unlawfully at large.[3]On 27 September 2024 the Applicant received the EDS sentence which he is currently serving. It was for a number of offences which were conveniently summarised as follows in the panel's decision:
"Briefly, there was an altercation which was heard and witnessed by neighbours where [the Applicant] hit the male victim to the head with a crowbar and then punched him about the body. He then turned on the female victim, raising his fists, and then using a dog lead to strangle her. [The Applicant] returned shortly afterwards whilst the female victim had entered her flat, and threatened her again, and during the struggle she managed to raise the alarm. The male victim was later intimidated by a friend of [the Applicant] in an attempt to have him withdraw his statement ."
[4]The EDS sentence is made up of a custodial period of three and a half years and an extended licence period of one and a half years. I understand that he will become eligible for early release in June 2026. As is the normal practice the Secretary of State for Justice ('the Respondent') referred the case to the Board in good time before that date to decide whether to direct his early release.[5]The MCA panel had to decide whether(a) the case should proceed to an oral hearing or(b) it should be adjourned or deferred for further information or(c) it should be determined on the papers. In this case the panel decided that the case should be determined on the papers.[6]The Applicant has made an application for reconsideration of the panel's decision.[7]I am one of the members authorised to make decisions on such applications and this application has been allocated to me. The Relevant Law The test for release on licence[8]Under the codified public protection test(a) the panel could only direct the Applicant's release on licence if it was satisfied that his continued confinement in prison was no longer necessary for the protection of the public, and(b) it could only be so satisfied if they considered that (if the Applicant were to be no longer confined in prison) there would be no more than a minimal risk of his committing a further offence so serious that it might result in serious harm to somebody else. The rules relating to reconsideration of decisions[9]Under Rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended) a decision is eligible for reconsideration if (but only if) it is a decision that the prisoner is or is not suitable for release on licence.[10]The grounds on which an application may be made are(a) error of law and/or(b) irrationality and/or(c) procedural unfairness.[11]The application in this case is made on the grounds of error of law and procedural unfairness.[12]A decision that a prisoner is or is not suitable for release on licence is eligible for reconsideration whether it is made by:(i) a paper panel (Rule 19(1)(a) or (b)) (as in this case) or(ii) an oral hearing panel after an oral hearing (Rule 25(1)) or(iii) an oral hearing panel which has made a decision on the papers (Rule 21(7)). Error of law[13]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.[14]These are not the only grounds for a finding of illegality, but they are the ones most commonly advanced. 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. 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.[16]Examples of procedural unfairness which may be a ground for quashing a panel's decision on this ground are where:(a) express procedures laid down by law were not followed; or(b) the party was not given a fair hearing; or(c) the party was not properly informed of the case against them; or(d) the party was prevented from putting their case properly; or(e) the panel did not properly record the reasons for any findings or conclusion; or(f) the panel was not impartial.[17]These are not the only possible grounds for a finding of procedural unfairness but they are the ones most commonly alleged. The overriding objective is to ensure that the Applicant's case was dealt with justly. The application[18]As noted above the application in this case is made on the grounds of error of law and procedural unfairness. The specific arguments to support those grounds will be discussed below. The Respondent's position[19]The Respondent is entitled to make any observations relating to the application. The Reconsideration and High Court Referral Section, within the Public Protection Group of the Ministry of Justice, have made certain observations on behalf of the Respondent. Those observations will be discussed below. Documents considered[20]I have considered the following documents for the purpose of this application:(1) the dossier provided for the Applicant's case, which runs to 194 numbered pages;(2) the Applicant's representations in support of his application; and(3) the Respondent's observations. Discussion[21]To decide whether to grant this application I need to examine(1) the panel's reasons for its decision(2) the applicant's representations and(3) the Respondent's observations. The panel's reasons[22]The panel provided an accurate summary of the Applicant's history, his offending, his progress in custody, his risk factors, the proposed risk management plan and probation's assessment of his current risks. It then expressed its conclusions as follows:
"The panel took into consideration all the information in the dossier including the nature and seriousness of the index offences; the nature and seriousness of the previous offences for which [the Applicant] has been convicted; his conduct in custody; the risk that he would commit a further offence if no longer confined; the risk that, if released on licence, he would fail to comply with one or more licence conditions; and any evidence of the effectiveness (in reducing the risk he poses to the public) of any treatment, education or training he has received or participated in while serving this sentence. The panel considered reports from the professionals; and reviewed his progress during this sentence. "[The Applicant] has been convicted of serious offences and having met the threshold of 'dangerousness' received an extended determinate sentence. "
During this sentence, [the Applicant] has not yet engaged with interventions. Professionals assess that he has not addressed his risks; and he has not persuaded professionals or this panel that he has full insight into the triggers and motivations for his offending. "The panel considered that [the Applicant] has yet to demonstrate any significant change that will prevent him reoffending or causing serious harm. His risks cannot be managed by external controls alone, and he needs to demonstrate that he has the relevant internal/self-management controls in-place, and can apply them consistently. "For now, given his high risks of reoffending; his high risk of causing serious harm; his outstanding risk factors; his history of poor compliance; and the lack of progress in addressing his risks; and the causal link between poor compliance and his risks of serious harm, there is no sufficiently robust risk management plan in place to safely manage his risks in the community. Consequently, it is necessary for the protection of the public that he remain confined to custody, and the panel does not direct release." The Applicant's representations[23]These are as follows:
"I write to formally request reconsideration of the decision made in relation to my paper parole review on the grounds that the decision is affected by an error of law and is procedurally unfair, resulting in significant disadvantage to me. "
The relevant decisions were made on 16 December 2025 and 4 March 2026 with my case being determined on 19 January 2026. It is my understanding that I am entitled to request reconsideration where a decision is legally flawed or procedurally unfair, and I respectfully submit that this applies in my case. "The decision appears to have been based, at least in part, on a conclusion that I had failed to engage with the required risk reduction work. However, this does not accurately reflect my circumstances. I spent in excess of 12 months at [prison A] during which time the programme required for me to progress my sentence plan was not available or facilitated. This was entirely outside of my control. "In December 2024 I was informed by my OMU officer that the Building Choices High Intensity Programme would be delivered at [prison A] in October 2025. I remained at that establishment on that basis, fully willing and expecting to engage. However, when October 2025 arrived, I was informed that the programme would not in fact be running there, and that I would need to transfer to [prison B] to complete it. "This situation caused a significant delay in my ability to undertake the required intervention, through no fault of my own. I have throughout my sentence demonstrated a consistent willingness to engage in all aspects of my sentence plan. "I am now fully enrolled in the Building Choices High Intensity Programme at [prison B] and I am actively engaging with it. The programme is due to be completed in August 2026 which coincides with my parole eligibility date of August 2026. "In light of these circumstances I respectfully submit that the original decision does not fairly or accurately reflect my level of engagement, nor does it take proper account of the delays caused by factors beyond my control. I therefore believe the decision is both procedurally unfair and materially affected by error." The Secretary of State's observations[24]These are as follows:
"The Reconsideration and High Court Referral Section (RHRCS), within the Public Protection Group in HMPPS, have reviewed the attached application for reconsideration, submitted to the Parole Board by [the Applicant]. We wish to provide representations regarding the below claims discussed in the application, on behalf of the Secretary of State: "
I am now fully enrolled in the Building Choices High Intensity Programme at [prison B], and I am actively engaging with it. The programme is due to be completed in August 2026, which coincides with my parole eligibility date of August 2026. "RHCRS has been in contact with the Offender Manager Unit at [prison B] who have confirmed that [the Applicant] is currently completing the Building Choices High Intensity Programme. He is expected to complete treatment week commencing 3 August, however missed sessions could incur a delay. "The Reconsideration and High Court Referral Section make no further representations in response to [the Applicants'] reconsideration application." Decision[25]I am grateful to the Applicant and the Respondent for their very clear and helpful representations/observations. I entirely accept what they have written (I believe the Parole Eligibility Date is actually June 2026 but that is immaterial for present purposes).[26]I have a great deal of sympathy with the Applicant for the delays in enabling him to undertake the programme. Those delays were certainly not his fault. However, delays of this kind are not uncommon and what I have to decide is whether the delays which have occurred in this case amount to an error of law or procedural unfairness.[27]Error of law of the kind which can amount to a ground for reconsideration of a panel's decision is, I am afraid, confined to the process resulting in that decision. It covers errors on the part of the panel itself or administrative errors on the part of the Board's staff which affect the decision itself but it does not cover failures in the prison system.[28]Similarly, I am afraid, procedural unfairness which can amount to a ground for reconsideration covers unfairness on the part of the panel itself or the Board's staff but does not cover failures in the prison system.[29]There have been some cases where a panel failed to obtain information necessary to make a fair decision and where the panel's decision can be treated as procedural unfairness. However I do not think that that is the case here. The panel cannot be criticised for proceeding on the information available to it when it made its decision. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot uphold this application.[30]There is a procedure for setting aside a decision to release a prisoner where fresh evidence has come to light after the decision was made but there is no corresponding provision for setting aside a decision not to release a prisoner where fresh evidence has come to light.[31]Whilst that may seem unfair any potential unfairness can be avoided by the Respondent making a fresh referral to the Board so that there can be an oral hearing at an appropriate time. It is of course a matter for the Respondent to decide when to make a fresh referral of this case. He may wish to do so in the fairly near future now that the Applicant is known to be in the process of completing the appropriate programme. He will obviously wish to see the outcome of that programme and a further report from the COM. He may possibly also wish to commission an up-to-date psychological risk assessment taking into account the outcome of the programme. Jeremy Roberts 15 May 2026