Pollard, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 116 (29 May 2026) [2026] PBRA 116
[1]This is an application by Pollard (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of an oral hearing dated 24 April 2026 not to direct release. The panel did recommend a transfer to open conditions.[2]Rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended by the Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2025) (the Parole Board Rules) provides that applications for reconsideration may be made in eligible cases (as set out in rule 28(2)) either on the basis(a) that the decision contains an error of law,(b) that it is irrational and/or(c) that it is procedurally unfair. This is an eligible case, and the application was made in time.[3]I have considered the application on the papers. These are: · The Oral Hearing Decision. · The Application for Reconsideration dated 7 May 2026 and drafted by the Applicant's solicitors. · The dossier, now consisting of 762 numbered pages, ending with the Decision. Request for Reconsideration[4]The ground for seeking a reconsideration is that the panel did not, in its Decision, make specific reference to the oral submissions on the Applicant's behalf made at the end of the hearing. This is argued to be procedurally unfair. Background[5]On 24 April 2008, when he was 22 years old, the Applicant received a sentence of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) for sexual offences committed against three teenage girls, one of them under 16. The tariff was set at seven years and six months, with allowance for time on remand. The tariff expired on 9 December 2014. He was released on licence on 17 June 2019 and recalled on 6 July 2019. Current parole review[6]The Applicant is now 40 years old. This is his fourth parole review since recall. The Respondent's Referral is dated 19 December 2024 and requires the Parole Board to consider release and suitability for open conditions.[7]The oral hearing panel consisted of three independent members of the Parole Board. The first hearing (all hearings were remote) took place on 18 September 2025 but was adjourned on the day to allow the Applicant to move forward on his regime within the prison, and for a psychological report to be prepared. The final hearing took place on 16 April 2026. The panel considered a dossier consisting of 743 pages. The Prison Offender Manager (POM), the Community Offender Manager (COM), a psychologist, and the Applicant himself gave evidence. The Applicant was represented. The panel invited the Respondent to arrange to be represented, so that it could investigate any concerns he might have about a recommendation for open conditions. The Respondent did not take up this invitation and was not represented. The Relevant Law[8]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)[9]Rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules provides the types of decision which are eligible for reconsideration. Decisions concerning whether the prisoner is or is not suitable for release on licence are eligible for reconsideration whether made by a paper panel (rule 19(1)(a) or (b)) or by an oral hearing panel after an oral hearing (rule 25(1)) or by an oral hearing panel which makes the decision on the papers (rule 21(7)). Decisions concerning the termination, amendment, or dismissal of an IPP licence are also eligible for reconsideration (rule 31(6) or rule 31(6A)). This is an eligible type of sentence, and an eligible decision. Procedural unfairness Procedural unfairness means that there was some procedural impropriety or unfairness resulting in the proceedings being fundamentally flawed and therefore, producing a manifestly unfair, flawed, or unjust result. These issues (which focus on how the decision was made) are entirely separate to the issue of irrationality which focusses on the actual decision. In summary an Applicant seeking to complain of procedural unfairness under rule 28 must satisfy me that either:(a) express procedures laid down by law were not followed in the making of the relevant decision;(b) they were not given a fair hearing;(c) they were not properly informed of the case against them;(d) they were prevented from putting their case properly;(e) the panel did not properly record the reasons for any findings or conclusion; and/or(f) the panel was not impartial. The overriding objective is to ensure that the Applicant's case was dealt with justly. Reconsideration as a discretionary remedy[13]Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. That means that, even if an error of law, irrationality, or procedural unfairness is established, the Reconsideration Member considering the case is not obliged to direct reconsideration of the panel's decision. The Reconsideration Member can decline to make such a direction having taken into account the particular circumstances of the case, the potential for a different decision to be reached by a new panel, and any delay caused by a grant of reconsideration. That discretion must of course be exercised in a way which is fair to both parties. The reply on behalf of the Secretary of State[14]The Respondent has submitted no representations in response to this application. Discussion[15]The sole issue raised is the failure of the panel specifically to say in its Decision that it has considered the oral submissions on behalf of the Applicant. There is no suggestion that the panel failed to consider any relevant matter or considered anything irrelevant. There is not even a suggestion that the panel did not take into account any point raised on behalf of the Applicant - just that it failed to summarise the submissions.[16]The application refers to the Parole Board's Decision Writing Guidance , issued January 2025. It is not of itself procedurally unfair not to follow such guidance, nor, indeed, is it a legal requirement that a panel should follow guidance on the form and content of a written Decision. The application may, perhaps, be right to say that it is discourteous not to reference the submissions at least to some extent, but discourtesy, even if made out, is not a ground for reconsideration. The application complains that the panel " has instilled little faith in the decision that the submissions were carefully considered ." The application does not point to any evidence that they were not. I have no doubt that if the Decision did not deal with any issue raised in the submissions, my attention would have been drawn to the defect. There is no suggestion that the Applicant's case was not, in fact, dealt with justly.[17]The oral hearing Decision in this case contains a thorough and detailed analysis, considering points favourable to release as well as those telling against it. In particular, the panel fully records the evidence of the only professional witness supporting release, the psychologist, and, of course, of the Applicant himself. The panel fully explained its reasoning in concluding that the Applicant did not meet the criteria for release. It is not suggested that this reasoning was in any way defective.[18]I do not find there to be any procedural unfairness in this case. If I had found that the failure to make specific reference to the oral submissions amounted to such unfairness, I would have exercised my discretion not to grant reconsideration. Decision[19]For the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the decision was procedurally unfair and accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused. HH Patrick Thomas KC 29 May 2026