Jalil, Application for Reconsideration by the Secretary of State for Justice [2026] PBRA 121 (05 June 2026) [2026] PBRA 121

PBRA
Jalil, Application for Reconsideration by the Secretary of State for Justice [2026] PBRA 121 (05 June 2026)
[2026] PBRA 121 · 2007-06-15
[1]This is an application by the Secretary of State ('the Applicant') for reconsideration of a decision by a panel of the Parole Board ('the Board') to direct the release on licence of Jalil, who will be referred to in this decision as 'the Respondent'. The Respondent is serving an extended determinate sentence for his participation in a conspiracy to cause explosions likely to endanger life. The sentence comprises a custodial term of 26 years and a licence extension period of five years.[2]The sentence was imposed on 15 June 2007 and will expire in August 2035. The Respondent was first released on licence on 16 November 2021. He has since then been recalled to prison twice. His most recent recall was on 19 March 2025. Following an oral hearing on 24 March 2026 the panel decided to direct his re-release on licence. It is against that decision that the Applicant has made this application.[3]I am one of the judicial members of the Board and I am authorised to make decisions on reconsideration applications. This application has been allocated to me to decide. Background[4]The Respondent is now aged 53. He comes from a Pakistani family but has resided in the UK for most of his life. In or about 2001 he became involved with Mr X, a British citizen who had embraced Islamic extremism and received training for various terrorist activities. The Respondent became the most trusted of a number of Mr X's associates when he was planning terrorist attacks (four different plans any of which would have been likely to have serious consequences). Fortunately, these plans did not come to fruition, and the participants were apprehended and charged. The Respondent pleaded guilty on an agreed basis of plea and was sentenced as above in June 2007.[5]The Respondent's behaviour in prison has been generally good. In 2016 there was an important development. It had been noted that the Respondent showed signs of autism and he was referred for a detailed autism assessment by a chartered and registered forensic psychologist who is an expert in this field. The assessment revealed that there were a number of recognised autistic features in the Respondent's thinking and behaviour.[6]One of those features is described as "intense, narrow and all-absorbing 'circumscribed' interests that may be unusual for a person's age/peer group" . The Respondent had had for a number of years before his involvement with Mr X an intense interest in military aircraft, the Pakistan military and the Mujahideen. He subscribed to a magazine which showed details of military aircraft and looked up on the internet a large number of other publications on military topics.[7]In 1997 he had travelled to Pakistan with the intention of engaging in military training. However once there he found the practical reality of the training had not matched his expectations (described as his "fantasy world" ) and he found the real-life practicalities of training in Pakistan daunting. He became ill and returned home to the UK. He continued, however, to have an intense interest in reading about military matters.[8]Other features of his autism will be discussed below. Those responsible for managing his case were made aware of the need to take account of his autistic tendencies.[9]In August 2017 the Respondent became eligible for early release on licence and in November 2021 a panel of the Board concluded that his risk of serious harm had been reduced to a level at which it would be manageable on licence in the community. He was accordingly released to approved premises with a formidable list of licence conditions.[10]In April 2022 he was recalled to prison as a result of what were said to be breaches of his licence conditions. In November 2023 another panel of the Board directed his re-release on licence. That panel concluded that(a) the uncertainty and ambiguity in the way his licence conditions had been drafted had posed difficulties for the Respondent because of his autism,(b) he had not intentionally breached his licence conditions and(c) there was no evidence to support a finding that his risk to the public had increased. The panel also noted that he had undertaken many years of ideological work in prison and had fully engaged with professionals, and they concluded that there was no evidence that he continued to have an extremist mindset.[11]On 19 March 2025 the Respondent was again recalled to prison for what were certainly some breaches of his licence conditions. His case was referred to the Board and in due course an oral hearing was directed. The present panel was nominated to conduct the hearing. The panel comprised two judicial members of the Board and a psychologist member: all of them are very experienced in cases of this kind.[12]The hearing took place on 24 March 2026. It was conducted by video link. The Respondent was legally represented, as was the Applicant. The panel had considered all of the written evidence in the dossier provided by the Applicant which at that stage ran to page 978. They received oral evidence from the following witnesses:(a) a senior forensic psychologist(b) the prison offender manager ('POM')(c) the community offender manager ('COM')(d) a counter-terrorism probation practitioner(e) a counter-terrorism police sergeant(f) a counter-terrorism police digital specialist and(g) a counter-terrorism police data analyst.[13]At the conclusion of the hearing the panel invited both legal representatives to submit closing representations, which they duly did. The panel then issued their decision. The Relevant Law The test for release on licence[14]Under the Codified Public Protection test (which the Board is obliged to follow) a panel can only direct a prisoner's release on licence if they are satisfied that his continued confinement in prison is no longer necessary for the protection of the public, and they can only be so satisfied if they conclude that, if the prisoner 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[15]Under Rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended in 2025) 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.[16]The grounds on which an application may be made are:(a) error of law(b) irrationality or(c) procedural unfairness.[17]The application in this case is made on the ground of irrationality.[18]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)) or(ii) An oral hearing panel after an oral hearing, as in this case (Rule 25(1)) or(iii) An oral hearing panel which makes a decision on the papers (Rule 21(7)). The definition of irrationality[19]The power of the courts to interfere with a decision of a competent public authority on the ground of irrationality was defined in Associated Provincial Houses Ltd -v- Wednesbury Corporation 1948 1 KB 223 by Lord Greene as follows:
"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 Parole Board is a public authority for that purpose, and the Wednesbury test therefore applies to applications to the High Court for judicial review of a panel's decision. It also applies to applications to reconsideration panels of the Board for reconsideration of a panel's decision on the ground of irrationality.[20]In R (DSD and others) -v- the Parole Board 2018 EWHC 694 (Admin) ('the Worboys case') a Divisional Court applied this test to Parole Board decisions in these words:
"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."
The same test of course applies to 'no release' decisions.[21]In R (on the application of Wells) -v- Parole Board 2019 EWHC 2710 (Admin) Mr Justice Saini set out what he described as a more nuanced approach in modern public law. This approach is "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 formulation of the 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) .[22]As was made clear by Mr Justice Saini, this is not a different test from the Wednesbury test. The interpretation of (and application of) the Wednesbury test in parole hearings (as explained in the Wednesbury and DSD cases) was of course binding on Mr Justice Saini. It is similarly binding on reconsideration panels.[23]It is well established that in considering an application for reconsideration on the ground of irrationality a reconsideration panel should not substitute its own view of the evidence for that of the panel who heard the witnesses and were able to assess their reliability.[24]What a reconsideration panel may be able to do without infringing the Wednesbury test (depending of course on the facts of the case under consideration) is to make a finding of irrationality if the panel has attached manifestly disproportionate or inadequate weight to an important factor and the panel's decision might have been different if they had not done so. Where that is the case the reconsideration panel may conclude that the panel's decision can be regarded as one to which no reasonable panel could have come.[25]It is also well established that a panel must provide reasons for its decision. If its reasons do not stand up to close examination its decision may be regarded as irrational. Equally if the panel provides no reasons at all the Reconsideration Member (or the High Court if the case is referred to it for a judicial review) will have no means of knowing what the panel's reasons were and whether they would have stood up to close examination: the reconsideration panel may then find that their decision was irrational. Request for Reconsideration[26]As noted above, the application in this case is made on the ground of irrationality. The specific grounds for alleging irrationality will be discussed below. The Respondent's position[27]The Respondent's legal representative on his behalf has responded to each of the grounds advanced by the Applicant. Her responses will be discussed below. Documents considered[28]I have considered the following documents for the purpose of deciding this application:(a) The dossier provided by the Applicant for the Respondent's case, which now runs to page 1030 and includes a copy of the panel's decision;(b) The representations submitted by the Applicant in support of his application; and(c) The representations submitted by the Respondent's legal representative in opposition to this application. Discussion[29]Before examining the arguments for and against this application it is convenient to set out the reasons given by the panel for their decision. These are set out after their very detailed summary of the evidence in the last two sections of their decision. These read as follows:
" Analysis of the Manageability of Risk (the Future) "3.1 [The POM, the police probation practitioner and the COM] all confirmed their agreement with [the psychologist's] assessment in the 12 March 2026 Extremism Risk Guidance - Revised (ERG-R assessment) Assessment that there is the potential for severity to be high, should an extremist offence be committed by [the Respondent], but his capability and engagement, likelihood, and frequency are all moderate, and his intent is low (which has been the assessed level of intent in all the ERG assessments since 2016), and there is a moderate level of protective factors which operate to reduce risk to the public. Any reoffending would be unlikely to be imminent and there would be warning signs that would be identifiable through the proposed risk management plan. "3.2 The panel considers [the psychologist's] assessment of risk is well supported by the reasons she provides in her report, and accounting for all the evidence taken in the round. "3.3 [The POM, the police probation practitioner, the psychologist and the COM] all also confirmed that their opinion and recommendation that [the Respondent's] risk is capable of being effectively managed, consistent with the codified public protection test, under the proposed risk management plan and all confirmed that they recommended that [the Respondent's] release be directed. "3.4 [The psychologist] hypothesised that the most likely risk scenario in the community would be essentially a repeat of the index offence, where [the Respondent] engaged in research or the collation of information with the purpose of assisting others in the preparation of potentially very seriously harmful offending. The panel has also identified another potential risk scenario that [the Respondent] travels overseas to engage in such activities, and the possibility of [the Respondent] acting alone to commit an act of terrorism must also be considered. "3.5 The panel is however persuaded that the indicators of increased risk identified by [the psychologist] in the March 2026 report are likely to be observed in the event of an escalation in [the Respondent's] risk and effectively acted upon under the proposed risk management plan, such that the risk to the public of him being in the community would be minimal. "3.6 Consideration of the indicators of reduced risk identified by [the psychologist] in the March 2026 report is also recommended."
These indicators need not be set out here. "Conclusion "4.1 [The Respondent] is serving an extended determinate sentence for extremism-related offending, involving the compiling of information intended to be used to cause explosions likely to endanger life and having therefore the potential to cause harm of a high level of severity. His engagement and behaviour in custody have been consistently positive, and his release has been directed by the Parole Board on two occasions. He has been recalled to custody twice, and the instant panel has found the most recent recall to have been amply justified by [the Respondent's] breach of the conditions of his licence by conducting internet research regarding weapons, and his increasing social isolation after moving from Approved Premises...to live with family .... "4.2 It is however encouraging that the risk management measures in place at the relevant time were effective in swiftly identifying the breach, and that [the Respondent] had been open in expressing his own concerns regarding social isolation. "4.3 The proposed risk management plan is clearer and more stringent in terms of monitoring and controls, and includes plans that make such isolation less likely, all accounting for [the Respondent's] autism traits, which are now even better understood by the relevant professionals. "4.4 Having had regard to the evidence and submissions, the panel finds, in agreement with the consensus of the witnesses who expressed a view, that [the Respondent's] assessed risk is capable of being effectively managed, consistent with the codified public protection test, under the proposed risk management plan. " 4.5 [The Respondent's] release is therefore directed, in accordance with the proposed risk management plan.[30]I can now turn to the Applicant's grounds in support of this application and the Respondent's legal representative's responses to them. Ground 1: Need for further testing in prison[31]The Applicant's arguments:
" [The Applicant] considers that the decision to release [the Respondent] is worthy of a review by a Reconsideration Panel member, due to concerns that there has been an insufficient period of further testing in custody, given the concerning nature of his most recent recall which took place just over one year ago. While [the Applicant] reflects that the view of the professional witnesses [within the decision] was that a further period in custody would not add anything to what is already known about [the Respondent], and that any learnings from interventions should be consolidated in the community, [the Applicant] asserts that similar evidence was provided at [the Respondent's] 2023 parole hearing - with him still going on to be recalled, in concerning circumstances."
[32]The legal representative's responses to this ground:
"... [The Applicant] has submitted [within the application] that the decision of the Parole Board is irrational because there are "concerns that there has been an insufficient period of further testing in custody". "
This 'concern' was not shared by any of [the Applicant's] witnesses responsible for managing [the Respondent] in custody and in the community. The submission that there are "concerns" that [the Respondent] requires further time in custody does not amount to a submission that the Panel's decision is irrational because it either (i) didn't properly consider these concerns or (ii) having considered these concerns nevertheless reached a decision that was out with the bounds of a reasonable decision and "no sensible person could have arrived at it". The submission does not meet the threshold test for re-consideration." " [The Applicant's concern] was a matter that was openly ventilated with each of the professional witnesses by the representative of [the Applicant] at the oral hearing . [At this point the legal representative quotes the relevant passage from the panel's decision which I have set out above, so I do not need to repeat it]." "It is evident from [that passage] that this issue was ventilated in full with each of [the Applicant's] professional witnesses, whose view was unanimous that no further testing in custody was required. [The Applicant] has essentially submitted that in endorsing the unanimous view of the professionals the Panel has reached an irrational decision. That submission is unsustainable in circumstances where (i) there would be no rational basis identified from which to depart from the view of the professionals on the evidence before the Panel (ii) it is clear that the Board has formed its own independent view of that opinion, having questioned all the witnesses extensively at the hearing about precisely matters such as this. "The mere fact that there was "similar evidence" in a 2023 oral hearing (where the Board found [the Respondent's] recall was not justified does not come close to meeting the threshold of rendering this decision irrational. It cannot be [the Applicant's] position that in the event that there is similar evidence that informed a previous decision of the Parole Board to find a recall unjustified (based on different witnesses' evidence) it would be irrational for a future Panel to reach its own independent informed conclusion on the contemporaneous and expert evidence put before it." My conclusion[33]I agree with the legal representative that this ground cannot be sustained. I can see no valid criticism of the panel's view (which was shared by all the professional witnesses) that a further period in custody was unnecessary. I have carefully examined the relevant evidence, and I am satisfied that there is good reason to believe that when the Respondent was moved from approved premises to a family member's address he was faced by a number of difficulties which (due in part to his autism) contributed to his breaches of licence conditions.[34]Though he was no doubt pleased to be able to move from the approved premises to this address, the restrictions imposed on him by his licence conditions clearly resulted in extreme boredom which in turn resulted in his spending more and more time pursuing his intense interests through documents or the internet. He was authorised to pursue those interests but was expected to disclose them to those supervising him. For the most part he did so but he did omit to disclose some of them.[35]An additional difficulty was that he was not permitted to attend any mosque in the town where he was required to live. This is something which those managing him will certainly take into account in the future, and the current risk management plan accounts for this. Ground 2: Interest in the military[36]The Applicant's arguments are:
"In considering the circumstances of [the Respondent's] recall, [the Applicant] is aware that [the Respondent] has a natural interest in the military. However, considering that his focus on this type of material 'developed into a broader interest in inter-related topics, including the Mujahideen and the Pakistan Army', the content accessed by [the Respondent], particularly the specifics of what [he] was researching, raise concern that require more careful consideration. The intent behind him accessing this material merits increased scrutiny. "
The Panel notes in Para 1.72 of the decision that 'should such tasks become risky, he may disregard their broader implications', and while the Panel also note that some of his natural interest and research is covered by legitimate mainstream journalism, which his licence permits access to, the line is very clearly blurred between what is a passive interest in current affairs, and what is risk-related when considering the nature of his index offence. [The Applicant] submits that engagement with material concerning drones and specific weapons is more relevant to risk than the Panel concluded and would make the management and monitoring of risk upon release more difficult."[37]The legal representative's response is:
" [The Applicant] has submitted that the nature of [the Respondent's] interests in the military "require more careful consideration" as does the "intent behind him accessing this material"
. In response to that, [the Applicant] makes the following observations:
"(a) The submission that a matter "requires more careful consideration" or that managing [the Applicant's] risk may be "more difficult" does not come close to satisfying the threshold of irrationality, particularly given the close attention that was paid to this by [the Applicant's] professionals, in extensive discussions with [the Respondent] including the formulating of an amended risk management plan precisely to address the 'difficulties' identified; and the Panel, as is evident throughout the decision to release and in respect of the risk management plan and licence conditions that were set to support [the Respondent] and those managing him in the community, in response to the matters raised in the recall. "(b) [The Applicant's] long interest in the military is a matter that has been the subject of longstanding consideration dating back at least as far as [the forensic psychologist's] 2016 autism assessment which concluded that these were "intense interests that operated independently of any political goals and pre-dated his offending"
. It has been factored into his OASys reports and the decision refers to the conclusion in the 24 March 2025 OASys that "due to his interest in Technology and Military this likewise was not anything of concern". That conclusion was not the subject of any challenge during the hearing by [the Applicant] and has not been impugned in the Application. "(c) The nature of [the Applicant's] evidence was explored in detail in the hearing. That is reflected in the decision which addressed the nature of that interest in detail. The Panel specifically considered whether this interest was linked to extremist ideology and has [the Applicant's] insight into his own risk factors." My conclusion[38]I agree with the legal representative that this ground cannot be sustained. There is an important difference between the Respondent's innocent interest in military publications and an intention to obtain or use military hardware (or to supply it to anyone else) for terrorist purposes. There is a complete absence of any evidence to suggest that the Applicant has at any stage during his sentence had any intention or wish to become involved in any way in any form of terrorist activity, and the views of the panel and all the professional witnesses were that his doing so in the future were minimal. Those views were certainly not 'Wednesbury unreasonable'. Ground 3: Questions about the Respondent's openness or honesty[39]The Applicant's representations are:
"...there is some evidence to suggest that [the Respondent] has not been consistently open or honest. In relation to the recall matter, [the Respondent] accessed this material in defiance of a direct instruction and his licence conditions. The Panel notes 'the 22 seconds' duration of the visit [to the Reddit site] and the record in the Part B that [the Respondent] initially denied any recollection of visiting the site indicates the possibility of an ongoing attempt or desire to minimise that activity', and that 'it is more likely than not that he lingered on the forum for an (albeit) short period of time after realising that it was website of that type (which we consider would likely have been apparent immediately)'.... In this case, it may be appropriate to view his behaviour as offence-paralleling, and to consider whether additional testing in closed conditions is necessary prior to release to ensure that risk is manageable within the community. "[The Respondent] also admits that his communication decreased in his oral evidence to the Panel. The decision states that ' [the Respondent] has consistently acknowledged that his level of communication stopped because things were not going well for him in the ways he had reported to the DDP Theologian'.... "
The Panel also note that [the Respondent's] account is 'a rather different account of [his] involvement with (co-defendant) and [the Respondent's] role in the conspiracy than was described by [the trial judge]', which is indicative of minimisation that could function to frustrate the accurate assessment of future risk to some extent and indicate a relative inability or unwillingness to be open and honest with professionals tasked with making such assessments'.... This emphasises the importance of open communication and underlines the concern that he does not communicate honestly consistently, which is echoed in the Part A report in the dossier. The Part A report notes that '[the Respondent's] behaviours demonstrate that he has willingly disregarded licence conditions and instructions from professionals and has not acknowledged the impact these behaviours and actions could have'. The report also notes that he likewise does not appear to have acknowledged the need to inform professionals in relation to him developing unhealthy interests, despite being spoken to previously about the importance of being transparent with professionals regarding developing intense interests, which he appears to have done, but he has not told professionals...".[40]The legal representative's response is:
"[The Applicant] submits that "there is some evidence to suggest that [the Respondent] has not been consistently open and honest"
. Specifically, [the Applicant] relies on the Panel's conclusion in relation to the 'Reddit' visit [i.e. the viewing of the Reddit material] the fact that [the Respondent] struggled with open communication when he was declining in the community and that he had "minimised" his role in the conspiracy. "(a) The general issue of the genuineness of [the Respondent's] engagement was specifically considered in the hearing. [A police witness] who had had limited direct engagement with [the Respondent] suggested that [the Respondent] was only engaging positively because he wished to be released from prison. That was probed by the Panel at the hearing, with [the Respondent] and relevant witnesses with direct experience of him, leading to the conclusion that [the Respondent] was in fact "quite uncontrived in his approach". "(b) The Panel conducted an assessment of [the Respondent's] account of his involvement in the index offence at the hearing, including through questioning him and the witnesses, and found that his account of such involvement had broadly remained similar and that there had been a positive indication that [the Respondent] is more prepared to take responsibility for the potential impact of the index offending that is consistent with his apparently increased preparedness to be open in discussing his opinions regarding global affairs, rather than an indication of a willingness and ability to deceive professionals over a lengthy period. "(c) The question of the 22 second Reddit visit on 1st February 2025 (1½ months before recall) was specifically considered by the Panel. As such, it cannot be [the Applicant's] position that this wasn't considered by the Panel when reaching its decision. "(d) Once again, [the Applicant] may disagree with the Panel and with his own witnesses but the submission falls far short of demonstrating that the Panel's decision in terms of the weight that it attached to certain matters in its overall assessment following an oral hearing that the statutory release test is met is irrational." My conclusions[41]Again, I agree with the legal representative that this ground cannot be sustained. I have read the whole of the dossier and the panel's decision. The Respondent's engagement with the professionals has covered lengthy periods and has been almost entirely positive. The very few occasions when it has been other than positive can be attributed to difficulties of one kind or another. The Respondent may very well have been less than fully forthcoming to the trial judge about his participation in the conspiracy, but it has to be remembered that the trial judge was unaware of his autism, and it is to the Respondent's credit that recently he has been significantly more forthcoming. The panel clearly made a very careful assessment of the Respondent. They had the advantage of seeing and hearing him give evidence. Other panels might possibly have taken a different view of him but that is not the test. This was a matter on which views could no doubt reasonably differ and there is no basis on which the panel's view could be treated as 'Wednesbury unreasonable'. Ground 4: Adequacy of the risk management plan[42]The A pplicant's representations are:
"Lastly, the Panel place emphasis on the changes to the Risk Management Plan to support him feeling supported in the community, including his geographical location, attendance at a Mosque, relationships with his family and ability to socialise/spend time outdoors. While an element of this is necessary to support his ability to function and build routine as per his protective factors, [the Panel notes] that [the Respondent] had a number of protective factors in place at the time of the index offence and that 'these factors were not strong enough for him to disengage from the offending behaviour.' [The Applicant] also posits that there were several things going well for [the Respondent] in the community prior to recall, which are highlighted well in the decision: 'He had engaged in theological mentoring sessions including discussion regarding Islam and Islamist actions that terrorist groups have engaged with. He had also engaged with general mentoring on areas including voluntary work, application for paid employment, CV work, and welfare benefits. He had also completed Healthy Identity Intervention consolidation work with his Probation Officer and engaged with structured sessions with the psychological clinical lead to reflect on explore his autism and using the Good Lives Model in his day-to-day life and when future planning. These sessions also allowed for [the Respondent] to complete an autism passport, which can assist individuals in terms of explaining specific needs linked to their neurodiversity'. Despite this, [the Respondent] proceeded to engage with concerning material despite the clear instructions and ongoing engagement with his supervising officers."
[43]The legal representative's response is:
" [The Applicant] appears to make the submission that the updated risk management plan devised by [the Applicant's] National Security Division (in conjunction with MAPPA) is not adequate and that the Board's approval of it renders the decision to release irrational. We do not consider this to be a coherent submission. "
It is particularly significant that [the Applicant] did not raise any concerns about the overall adequacy of the risk management plan - or specific elements relating to the Risk Management Plan - either during the hearing or in closing submissions. It is wholly improper now to seek to raise issues that could have been properly ventilated during the hearing by [the Applicant's] instructed representative so that [the Respondent] (and the professional witnesses) could have had an opportunity to respond to them. "The key aspects overlooked by [the Applicant] are that:
"(a) The Risk Management Plan was devised and approved by all professionals who were in attendance at the Parole Board hearing and questioned about it by the hearing panel. The rejection of that opinion would have been irrational. "(b) The Panel has given detailed consideration to each element of the risk management plan which has been significantly modified from the plan previously in place. For example, the increased reliance on reasonable instruction letters and a "
Glossary" relating to the terms which [the Respondent] is not permitted to search or access content in relation to, to provide the certainty that he and psychological professionals are clear that he requires in light of the autism diagnosis. "(c) The Risk Management Plan that had previously been in place prior to recall had in fact functioned correctly. Even accepting that [the Respondent's] recall was found to be justified, it is clear that he was recalled before any harm materialised, let alone serious harm. This was recognised by the Panel:
"It is however encouraging that the risk management measures in place at the relevant time were effective in swiftly identifying the breach, and that [the Respondent] had been open in expressing his own concerns regarding social isolation."
My conclusion[44]I am afraid that once again I find that this ground cannot be sustained. The legal representative's response to this ground is really unanswerable. Decision[45]I understand the Applicant's concern about the possibility that the Respondent might at some stage be tempted to engage in very serious activity of the kind for which he is serving his lengthy sentence. However, I am bound to apply the legal principles set out in paragraphs 19-25 above and for the reasons I have explained above I cannot find any fault with the panel's decision. It was certainly not 'Wednesbury unreasonable' in any respect. I must therefore dismiss this application. Jeremy Roberts 05 June 2026