Parkes, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 120 (27 May 2026) [2026] PBRA 120

PBRA
Parkes, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 120 (27 May 2026)
[2026] PBRA 120 · 2026-04-16
[1]This is an application by Parkes (the Applicant) for reconsideration of an undated decision issued on 16 April 2026 not to direct his release. The decision was made by a panel after an oral hearing.[2]Rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended) (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.[3]I have considered the application on the papers. These are the decision, the dossier (now consisting of 341 numbered pages), and the application for reconsideration (to which are annexed three email messages). I have also listened to the audio recording of the hearing in its entirety. Background[4]On 16 June 2011, the Applicant was sentenced after conviction for eight counts of sexual activity with a child family member aged 13 - 17 with penetration, attempted sexual assault (intentional touching, no penetration) and causing unnecessary suffering to a young person. He received ten concurrent sentences of imprisonment for public protection with a minimum seven year term. He was also made subject to indefinite sex offender notification requirements, and a 99 year sexual offences protection order. The victim of the offences was his daughter who was aged 13 - 14 at the time of the offences.[5]I note that the index offences and sentence appear to have been incorrectly recorded in the front sheet of the decision, although the narrative analysis of the offending behaviour describes the substance of the index offending.[6]The Applicant was 31 years old at the time of sentencing and is now 46 years old.[7]The Applicant has twice been released and recalled on this sentence. The first recall reportedly followed his removal of a GPS tag, absconding and use of an alias to access medical treatment; he was later found living in a tent and intoxicated. The second recall reportedly followed a further abscond from designated accommodation after he had been assaulted, presented with signs of paranoia, and raised concern through alcohol misuse. He entered the exclusion zone where the victim lived and was again intoxicated when apprehended in connection with an alleged public order offence. Request for Reconsideration[8]The application for reconsideration has been submitted by solicitors on behalf of the Applicant. It argues that the decision was procedurally unfair.[9]The submissions are supplemented by written arguments to which reference will be made in the Discussion section below. Current Parole Review Procedural history[10]The Applicant's case was referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State (the Respondent) in February 2025 to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to direct his release. This is the Applicant's third parole review since his second recall.[11]His review proceeded to an oral hearing on 24 March 2026 before a three-member panel including a psychologist specialist member chair. Oral evidence was taken from the Applicant, the Prison Offender Managers (POMs) for his current and former establishments, the Community Offender Manager (COM), a forensic psychologist commissioned by HMPPS (prison psychologist), and a forensic psychologist commissioned by the Applicant (independent psychologist). The Applicant was legally represented throughout.[12]In the professional opinion of the current POM, COM and independent psychologist, the Applicant was suitable for release. The prison psychologist's professional opinion was that the Applicant was not suitable for release.[13]The panel accepted that the Applicant had made progress. It noted his substantial offence-focused work, improved responsibility-taking, recent stability in prison, positive engagement with Wellness Recovery Action Plan (WRAP) work, improved working relationship with the COM, the supportive evidence from the POM and COM, and the independent psychologist's opinion that the risk management plan was sufficiently robust to support release.[14]Against that, the panel remained concerned about the Applicant's ability to apply his learning under pressure. It accepted that his current risk was not imminent but considered that risk could escalate rapidly if he became dysregulated, felt threatened or under pressure, experienced a sense of injustice, disengaged from supervision, or returned to alcohol misuse.[15]The panel attached particular significance to the Applicant's compliance history. He had twice been released and twice recalled, both recalls involving absconding and alcohol misuse. He had also twice failed in open conditions, including one abscond from open conditions where he presented as intoxicated when apprehended. The panel therefore treated non-compliance as directly linked to risk, because the risk management plan could protect the public only if the Applicant remained present, engaged and compliant.[16]The panel was particularly concerned by the Applicant's stated intention to drink occasionally after release. Given his history of heavy alcohol use, alcohol-related breaches, absconding and poor decision-making, the panel considered that he was over-confident in his ability to manage alcohol and lacked sufficient insight into the risk it posed to his stability.[17]On the central issue of application of learning, the panel preferred the caution of the prison psychologist. It accepted that the Applicant could demonstrate intellectual insight but was not satisfied that he had shown he could reliably manage stress without avoidance, disengagement or breach. His recent progress was commended, but it had been demonstrated in the contained setting of prison rather than in the community or a less secure environment.[18]Taking those matters together, the panel concluded that the Applicant's risk could not yet be safely managed in the community and therefore the statutory test was not met. The panel made no direction for release. Matters raised following the hearing[19]The application for reconsideration includes emails from the COM, current POM and independent psychologist. These appear to have been sent to the Applicant's legal representative after she had sought their views on the fairness of the hearing. I shall set these out in full here.[20]The POM said: " I felt the hearing was rushed, especially during the latter part when the COM and psychologists were giving evidence. Furthermore, I am concerned by the nature of the panel's questions; many were loaded and leading, which felt inappropriate for a fair and balanced review".[21]The COM said: " I think it would be fair to say there were procedural issues during the Hearing. I do not feel that we had enough time, and the questions towards the end were very rushed given various parties stating that they had to leave. I also had some concerns about some of the language that was used by the Board towards [the Applicant], which I felt was quite judgemental in tone. Furthermore, there was one member of the Board in particular whose questions I really struggled to follow, and I recall the psychologist mentioning this at the time. It appeared that questions were hidden in within long monologues, and given that I struggled to establish what he was actually asking, I can only imagine that [the Applicant] felt the same".[22]The independent psychologist said:
" I do have a level of concern in regard to [the Applicant's] hearing in terms of fairness. I think it may be helpful for someone independent to review the hearing and specifically the style of/questions used. I considered at the time that questions generally felt unfairly focussed/lacking in balance. I understand the panel is required to do a risk assessment and so often the focus can be heavier on risk as opposed to protective features etc. However, during the hearing questions felt directive and often emotive terms were also used and again this impacted on questions feeling leading. One example is stating that because [the Applicant] did not engage in the PIPE [Psychologically Informed Planned Environment] (which he did for a period) that this may be suggestive of "coercive control" or "manipulation"
. I also considered that when he was questioned about plans for release the questions and approach to [t]his lacked responsivity in regard to the impact incarceration can have upon detail in this area". The Relevant Law[23]The Parole Board will direct release if it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined. Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)[24]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)).[25]Rule 28(2) of the Parole Board Rules provides the sentence types which are eligible for reconsideration. These are indeterminate sentences (rule 28(2)(a)), extended sentences (rule 28(2)(b)), certain types of determinate sentence subject to initial release by the Parole Board (rule 28(2)(c)) and serious terrorism sentences (rule 28(2)(d)).[26]A decision to recommend or not to recommend a move to open conditions is not eligible for reconsideration under rule 28. This has been confirmed by the decision on the previous reconsideration application in Barclay [2019] PBRA 6 . Procedural unfairness[27]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.[28]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.[29]The overriding objective is to ensure that the applicant's case was dealt with justly. The reply on behalf of the Respondent[30]The Respondent has submitted no representations in response to this application. Discussion Ground 1 - bias or perception of bias[31]It is first submitted that the panel demonstrated bias and preconceived views which resulted in the hearing being unfair. It is argued that the panel had pre-decided the outcome before the hearing commenced and that this was evident from the matters it chose to cover in questioning and its argumentative, antagonistic and hectoring manner of questioning which demonstrated preconceived and prejudged views.[32]As I set out in Hardisty [2020] PBRA 42 [22], procedural fairness demands that a decision-maker should not be biased or prejudiced in a way that precludes fair and genuine consideration being given to the arguments advanced by the parties. The test of bias was set out by Lord Hope in Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67 , [2002] 2 AC 357 , 494H, to be whether ' the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased' . The only way in which I can assess this is by reference to the audio recording.[33]I cannot determine, and do not need to determine, the panel's subjective state of mind before the hearing. The relevant question is whether, having considered the facts, a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias, or whether the conduct of the hearing was otherwise procedurally unfair.[34]The application gives three examples of such alleged poor questioning.[35]First, it is said that a panel member opened his questioning to the prison psychologist with a statement that the Applicant has shown " a high level of coercive control and manipulation" . It is argued that there is no evidence in the dossier to support this view and no concerns from staff that this is a feature of the Applicant's risk. As such, it is argued that this was a statement of opinion from the panel member, which was unsubstantiated, subjective, and did not reflect impartiality.[36]Second, it is said that the panel member went on to say " We've seen evidence in the papers and today that [the Applicant] has a victim mentality and grievance thinking, and someone else's fault. Is this a barrier to improving consequential thinking?". It is argued that this was not evidenced within the dossier nor the oral evidence heard prior to the question, and that the prison psychologist disagreed with this assertion.[37]Third, it is said that another panel member said to the Applicant that " you blame other people a lot and are very good at being a victim...do you struggle to own your actions?". It is argued that this question was loaded with an opinion, leading and judgemental.[38]It is also argued that the panel did not ask the Applicant any questions regarding consolidation work he has undertaken which demonstrates a lack of willingness to explore important risk-related evidence, and a failure to consider evidence in a balanced manner.[39]As a start point, I remind myself that rule 24(2)(b) permits a panel to ask any question to satisfy itself of the level of risk of the prisoner. That power is an important one. The parole jurisdiction is inquisitorial, and a panel is entitled, and usually required, to test professional evidence, explore apparent inconsistencies, and put difficult matters to witnesses and to the prisoner. The question is not whether the questioning was firm, uncomfortable, or focused on risk. The question is whether, viewed objectively and in context, the questioning crossed the line into unfairness, apparent prejudgment or hectoring, or prevented the Applicant from putting his case properly.[40]Before turning to the specific passages in the recording, I address the three emails relied on by the Applicant. I have considered those emails with care. The circumstances in which they were obtained are relevant to the weight I attach to them. They were not volunteered to the Board contemporaneously, either during or immediately after the hearing. They were obtained after the negative decision had been issued and after the Applicant's legal representative had indicated that she intended to submit an application for reconsideration on procedural fairness grounds. That does not mean the emails should be disregarded, but it does mean that they must be treated with appropriate caution.[41]The emails are nonetheless relevant. They were provided by professional participants in the hearing and they raise concerns which are capable of being tested against the audio recording. Their significance lies less in the conclusions expressed by their authors, and more in the specific matters they identify which overlap with, or provide context for, the pleaded grounds: allegedly loaded or leading questions, judgemental language, lengthy or difficult-to-follow questions, and an asserted lack of balance in the questioning. To the extent that the emails refer to the hearing being rushed, I treat that as contextual only. Lack of time is not advanced in the application as a discrete ground for reconsideration.[42]I also note two limitations. First, no email from the prison psychologist has been provided. She was the only professional witness whose opinion opposed release. I do not know whether she was not asked for her views, whether she was asked but did not respond, or whether she responded in terms which have not been relied upon. I draw no adverse conclusion from that absence. However, it does mean that the emails before me do not represent the whole professional witness cohort. Secondly, the Applicant was legally represented throughout the hearing. If his representative considered that the questioning was unfair, unclear, oppressive, or prevented the Applicant or any witness from giving evidence properly, she could have raised that with the chair at the time. I do not treat the absence of such an intervention as conclusive, but it is a relevant part of the procedural context.[43]I therefore treat the emails as relevant but not determinative. They identify issues which require scrutiny, but the primary evidence of how the hearing was conducted is the audio recording. The question for me is not whether individual participants later felt that aspects of the hearing were uncomfortable or unbalanced, but whether, viewed objectively and in context, the conduct of the hearing gave rise to procedural unfairness, apparent bias, or prevented the Applicant from putting his case properly.[44]Dealing with the first two points raised by the Applicant, I have listened carefully to the questioning of the prison psychologist. The first challenged formulation was that the case involved " a high level of coercive control and manipulation ". That was put in a way which would have been better framed as a question rather than as part of the premise for a question. The later reference to " victim mentality " was also an unfortunate shorthand and would have been better avoided. However, procedural fairness does not require panel questioning to be perfectly expressed. The question remains whether, viewed objectively and in context, the questioning would lead the fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility of bias, or whether it otherwise prevented the Applicant from putting forward his case fairly.[45]The subject matter of the questioning was plainly relevant to risk. The panel member was exploring selective engagement, disengagement from PIPE, compliance, the Applicant's ability to accept risk management structures which did not accord with his own preferences, his tendency to explain previous failures by reference to external circumstances, and his ability to apply learning when under pressure. Those were legitimate areas of enquiry in a case where the central issue was whether the Applicant could be relied upon to remain engaged with a community risk management plan.[46]Nor was the prison psychologist required to adopt the panel member's terminology. When asked whether the Applicant was trying to exert control over his sentence, she expressly declined to characterise the matter in that way and reframed the issue in terms of strong views, expectations, insight and the gap between verbalised learning and demonstrated behaviour. When asked about " victim mentality ", she again declined to adopt that phrase and instead described a tendency to place responsibility on external rather than internal factors. She gave a balanced answer, acknowledging that some events, including the assault at the designated accommodation, were not the Applicant's fault, while distinguishing those matters from his later choices to breach licence conditions, remove his tag and disengage from supervision.[47]I also do not accept the submission that there was no evidence in the dossier capable of grounding questions about coercive control or manipulation. The prison psychology report of 24 September 2025 refers to evidence of psychological coercion in sexual violence at page 239. The independent psychological report of 29 December 2025 contains similar material at page 270. The OASys report of 16 April 2025 also refers to significant problems with a manipulative and predatory lifestyle at page 148. Whether those matters justified the precise language used in the question is a separate issue; but it cannot fairly be said that the subject matter was evidentially baseless.[48]I therefore accept that aspects of this questioning could have been more carefully expressed. I do not accept that this passage demonstrates bias, apparent bias, or procedural unfairness. A fair-minded and informed observer would see robust and, in places, inelegantly framed risk-testing, but would also see a professional witness able to resist the panel member's language, qualify the premise of the question, and give her own evidence. The questioning did not prevent the Applicant's case from being put, nor did it prevent the prison psychologist from giving her professional opinion.[49]I have also considered the third passage relied upon by the Applicant, in which a panel member said to him: " you blame other people quite a lot " and " you are very good at being a victim ", before asking whether he struggled to own his own actions. The phrase " very good at being a victim " was poorly chosen. It was capable of sounding personal and pejorative, and the same issue could and should have been put more neutrally as a question about externalisation of responsibility, consequential thinking and ownership of risk-related choices.[50]However, viewed in context, I do not accept that this question demonstrates apparent bias or procedural unfairness. The panel member immediately explained what he meant by reference to the Applicant's previous denial of the index offences, his accounts of difficulties in open conditions, and his accounts of failures in the community. Those were legitimate matters to explore. The Applicant's ability to distinguish between events which happened to him and the choices he then made was central to the assessment of risk, because the panel's concern was whether he would remain compliant with a community risk management plan when under pressure.[51]The Applicant was also able to answer the question. He disagreed with the premise, said that he took full responsibility for his actions, accepted that he had removed his tag, and then explained why he had acted as he did. The questioning then moved to whether the same pattern could recur if he were returned to designated accommodation again and faced further stress or threat. That was a proper area of enquiry.[52]I therefore accept that this was an inelegant and unfortunate formulation. I do not accept that, viewed objectively and in context, it would cause the fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility of bias. Nor did it prevent the Applicant from putting his case. It was robust questioning of a central risk issue, expressed in terms which would have been better avoided, but it did not render the hearing unfair.[53]I do not accept the submission that the panel did not ask the Applicant anything about the consolidation work he had undertaken with the COM and an assistant psychologist. The recording shows that the Applicant was asked directly about the WRAP work. He was asked what it was, how it was working, and how it related to his ability to manage future difficulties. He explained that it involved building a crisis plan and a " wellness toolbox ", that he had undertaken six sessions, that he had completed further written work himself in his cell, and that he had found the work helpful. He described it as work designed to help him plan what he would do if things became difficult again.[54]The Applicant was then asked how he would deal with " bumps in the road " in future, and later whether the recent work would be enough to prevent impulsive action, disengagement, or taking matters into his own hands if released. Those questions went directly to the purpose of the consolidation work: whether it had equipped him to manage stress, comply with licence conditions, and remain engaged with risk management in the community.[55]It is therefore not accurate to say that the panel did not ask the Applicant about the work. The fairer criticism might be that the Applicant considers the questioning did not give sufficient weight to that work or did not explore it in the way he would have wished. That is not procedural unfairness. The panel was entitled to ask whether the work, recent and largely undertaken in closed conditions, sufficiently addressed the long-standing concern about the Applicant's ability to apply learning under pressure.[56]Finally on this first ground, the Applicant submits that the allegation of apparent bias is supported by the emails from the POM, COM and independent psychologist. I have considered those emails carefully. I accept that they record concerns about aspects of the hearing. The POM referred to the hearing feeling rushed and to questions which she considered loaded and leading. The COM referred to procedural issues, insufficient time, judgemental language, and difficulty following one panel member's questions. The independent psychologist referred to concerns about fairness, an asserted lack of balance, directive questioning, emotive language, and questions which felt leading.[57]However, I do not consider that those emails can fairly be characterised as three professional witnesses saying that they perceived the panel to be biased. None of the emails uses the language of bias, apparent bias, pre-determination or closed-mindedness. Their concerns are directed to the style, pace, balance and clarity of questioning. Those matters are relevant to procedural fairness and I have taken them into account for that purpose. They may also form part of the factual context in which an allegation of apparent bias is assessed. But they do not themselves amount to evidence that those witnesses perceived the panel to be biased. I therefore treat them as supporting the need for careful scrutiny of the recording, rather than as independent proof of apparent bias.[58]Standing back, I do not accept that the first ground is made out. Some of the questioning was robust, and some of the language used by the panel was unfortunate and would have been better expressed in more neutral terms. However, the challenged questions were directed to legitimate risk issues, the witnesses and the Applicant were able to disagree with the premises put to them, and the Applicant was not prevented from putting his case. Having listened to the recording and considered the emails relied upon by the Applicant, I am not satisfied that the fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias. Nor am I satisfied that the conduct of the hearing was procedurally unfair on this ground. Ground 2 - unclear questioning and interruption[59]The second ground is that the panel's questions were, at times, laboured, confusing and inappropriate, and that the Applicant was interrupted while giving evidence. It is said that one panel member took approximately six minutes to ask a single question, that some questions were convoluted and difficult to follow, and that the Applicant was interrupted in a way which was dismissive, rude and hectoring.[60]I have considered this ground by reference to the recording. I accept that some questions were lengthy and would have been better broken down into shorter parts. However, I do not find that the allegation of a six-minute question is made out. The questions I have identified as longer or more discursive were materially shorter than that. They were not models of economy, but they were directed to legitimate risk issues and the Applicant was able to answer them substantively.[61]I also accept that some questions were compound and required the Applicant to address more than one issue. However, the chair had explained at the outset that the Applicant could ask for clarification, take a break, or speak privately with his representative if he needed to do so. During the Applicant's evidence, the panel member also told him that if he did not understand a question, he should say so, and expressly said that any lack of clarity would be the questioner's fault, not the Applicant's. That is a relevant part of the procedural context.[62]I have considered whether the Applicant was interrupted to such an extent that he was prevented from giving his evidence. I do not find that he was. There were occasions when the panel redirected him, pressed him, or moved him on. That is not, without more, unfair. The recording shows that the Applicant gave detailed answers about the index offending, his time at another prison, open conditions, both recalls, his experience at designated accommodation, the WRAP work, his risk factors, his protective factors, future accommodation, family contact, alcohol use, and licence compliance. The overall picture is not of an applicant being prevented from giving his account.[63]Nor do I find that the questioning amounted to bullying or hectoring. As I have already found under Ground 1, some of the language was unfortunate and some questioning was robust. However, robust questioning is not bullying. The panel was entitled to test the Applicant's evidence on compliance, absconding, externalisation, alcohol use, disengagement and the practical workability of the proposed risk management plan. Those were central issues. The Applicant was able to disagree with propositions put to him and to give explanations for his previous conduct.[64]The procedural context also matters. The Applicant was legally represented throughout. His representative did not object to the questioning, did not ask the chair to intervene, did not seek a break in order to raise any concern privately, and did not suggest during the hearing that the Applicant was being prevented from giving his evidence. Nor were these matters raised in the written closing submissions submitted after the hearing. That is not conclusive, but it is relevant to the objective assessment of whether the conduct of the hearing crossed the line from robust risk-testing into unfairness.[65]I therefore do not accept that Ground 2 is made out. Some questions could have been shorter and more clearly framed, and some of the questioning was undoubtedly firm. However, the recording does not show that the Applicant was confused, bullied, or materially prevented from giving his evidence. Nor does it show that the fairness of the hearing was undermined by interruption or by the form of the questions asked. Ground 3 - incorrect reporting of evidence[66]The third ground is that the panel incorrectly reported material evidence and submissions, and that this led to an unfair assessment of risk. The Applicant relies in particular on the panel's summary of the prison psychologist's evidence, the inclusion of manipulation as a risk factor, and the proposition that the panel did not provide a true representation of the written closing submissions.[67]The starting point is that a decision is not required to be a transcript. A panel must give adequate reasons for its decision, but it is not required to record every nuance of the evidence or every submission made on behalf of a prisoner. The question is whether the panel materially misrepresented the evidence, misunderstood a central part of the case, or failed to engage with the substance of the Applicant's case in a way which rendered the decision unfair.[68]The principal complaint concerns the panel's statement that the prison psychologist concluded that, while the Applicant had made progress, his risk could not yet be safely managed in the community and further consolidation of skills within a custodial setting was required. The Applicant submits that this does not fairly reflect the prison psychologist's oral evidence, because she accepted that she was not fully up to date with the consolidation work, had difficulty commenting on its impact, and indicated that her position remained one of supporting open conditions if abscond risk were not an issue.[69]I have considered the recording. I accept that the prison psychologist's oral evidence was more nuanced than the single sentence challenged by the Applicant. She acknowledged that the Applicant had undertaken work after her report, that she was not fully familiar with its content or outcome, and that it was therefore difficult for her to comment definitively on whether it had addressed her recommendation for consolidation. She also acknowledged that there was some evidence that a robust risk management plan could intervene before risk escalated.[70]However, I do not accept that the decision materially misrepresented her evidence. When pressed for her professional opinion, the prison psychologist said that, as matters stood, she remained in the same position as set out in her report. She did not give a professional opinion supporting release. Her evidence remained that the Applicant had made progress, but that there were continuing concerns about application of learning, emotional regulation, compliance, alcohol use, abscond risk and the need for further testing or consolidation before release. The panel's summary was compressed, but it captured the substance of her professional position.[71]The Applicant also relies on the prison psychologist's reference to open conditions. That does not assist the Applicant in relation to release. The prison psychologist's evidence was that her position would have been open conditions if abscond risk were assessed as low. However, she recognised that abscond risk had been identified, and when it was put to her that, if abscond risk were not low, the consequence would be no release at that stage, she accepted that it would have to be on that basis. The panel was therefore entitled to treat her evidence as not supporting release.[72]The second complaint concerns manipulation being identified as a risk factor. I do not accept that this was a new or unsupported risk factor introduced by the panel. The index offending itself involved conduct capable of being understood as psychologically coercive. The prison psychology report, the independent psychological report and the OASys material all contained material capable of supporting questioning and reasoning about coercion, manipulation or predatory behaviour. In any event, the panel's refusal of release did not turn on manipulation as a free-standing risk factor. Its reasoning turned principally on compliance, absconding, alcohol misuse, emotional dysregulation, disengagement, and the Applicant's ability to apply learning under pressure.[73]The Applicant also submits that the panel did not provide a true representation of the written closing submissions. A panel is not required to reproduce closing submissions in full, nor to address every point made by a representative separately. The duty is to demonstrate that the substance of the case has been understood and to give adequate reasons for the decision reached.[74]I have considered the decision in that light. The panel expressly recorded that it had reflected carefully on the closing submissions, including the value of the consolidation work, the positive relationship with the COM, the protective factors, and the robustness of the risk management plan. Those were the central matters relied upon in favour of release. The panel also recorded the evidence favourable to the Applicant more broadly, including his recent stability, positive WRAP work, improved engagement with professionals, the support of the POM and COM, and the independent psychologist's professional opinion in support of release.[75]The panel did not accept that those matters were sufficient to satisfy the statutory test. Its reasons explain why. The panel remained concerned about the Applicant's ability to apply learning under pressure, his history of absconding and non-compliance, the link between non-compliance and risk, his previous alcohol-related failures, and his stated intention to drink occasionally after release. That was the evaluative answer to the case advanced on his behalf.[76]I do not therefore accept that the closing submissions were materially misrepresented or ignored. The decision could have summarised them at greater length, but adequacy of reasons does not require a point-by-point recitation of advocacy. The panel identified the substance of the Applicant's case and explained why it was not persuaded by it. That does not amount to procedural unfairness.[77]I also note that the decision recorded substantial evidence favourable to the Applicant. It referred to his positive behaviour since return to his current prison, his 'Enhanced' status, his engagement with WRAP work, the support of the current POM and COM, the independent psychologist's professional opinion in support of release, his improved relationship with probation, and the proposed risk management plan. This was not a decision which ignored or suppressed the positive evidence. The panel accepted much of it, but concluded that it was not sufficient to meet the statutory test.[78]I therefore do not accept that Ground 3 is made out. The decision could have recorded the prison psychologist's oral evidence with greater nuance, particularly her reservations about commenting on the impact of the recent consolidation work. However, the summary was not materially inaccurate. The panel understood the competing professional opinions, recognised the positive evidence, and explained why it preferred the more cautious assessment on the central issue of manageability of risk. Any compression in the written reasons did not render the decision procedurally unfair. Decision[79]For the reasons set out above, the application for reconsideration is refused. Stefan Fafinski 27 May 2026