Lynch, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 126 (03 June 2026) [2026] PBRA 126

PBRA
Lynch, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 126 (03 June 2026)
[2026] PBRA 126 · 2026-05-08
[1]This is an application by Lynch (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of an oral hearing panel dated 8 May 2026. The decision of the panel was not to direct release.[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 dossier, the application for reconsideration drafted by the Applicant's legal adviser, the decision of the oral hearing panel and the representations by the Secretary of State (the Respondent). Request for Reconsideration[4]The application for reconsideration is dated 20 May 2026.[5]The grounds for seeking a reconsideration are set out below. Background[6]The Applicant is serving a sentence of life imprisonment for the offence of murder. He had been released on licence on occasions in the past as set out below. The Applicant committed the index offence when he was aged 17. The Applicant was at the time part of a gang of boys who attacked a second group of boys in a rival gang. The victim was beaten and kicked to the head. The Applicant stabbed him three times in the back causing fatal injuries. Current parole review[7]The referral from the Respondent requested that the Parole Board consider whether the Applicant should be subject to a direction for release. If not directed for release whether he should be the subject of a recommendation for transfer to an open prison. The Applicant was aged 42 at the time of the oral hearing.[8]The Parole Board panel consisted of two members an independent Parole Board member who was the chair and a psychologist member. Evidence was given at the hearing by a Prison Offender Manager (POM), and a Community Offender Manager (COM). The Applicant gave evidence and was legally represented. The panel also considered a substantial dossier. The Relevant Law[9]The panel correctly sets out in its decision the test for release and the issues to be addressed in making a recommendation to the Respondent for a progressive move to open conditions. Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)[10]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)).[11]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)).[12]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 . Irrationality[13]The power of the courts to interfere with a decision of a competent tribunal on the ground of irrationality was defined in Associated Provincial Houses ltd -v- Wednesbury Corporation 1948 1 KB 223 by Lord Greene in these words " if a decision on a competent matter is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it, then the courts can interfere". The same test applies to a reconsideration panel when determining an application on the basis of irrationality.[14]In R(DSD and others) -v- the Parole Board 2018 EWHC 694 (Admin ) a Divisional Court applied this test to Parole Board hearings in these words at para 116 "the issue is whether the release decision was so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it. "[15]In R(on the application of Wells) -v- Parole Board 2019 EWHC 2710 (Admin) Saini J set out what he described as a more nuanced approach in modern public law which was "to test the decision maker's ultimate conclusion against the evidence before it and to ask whether the conclusion can (with due deference and with regard to the panel's expertise) be safely justified on the basis of that evidence, particularly in a context where anxious scrutiny needs to be applied)". This test was adopted by a Divisional Court in the case of R(on the application of the Secretary of State for Justice) -v- the Parole Board 2022 EWHC 1282 (Admin) .[16]As was made clear by Saini J this is not a different test to the Wednesbury test. The interpretation of and application of the Wednesbury test in Parole hearings as explained in DSD was binding on Saini J.[17]It follows from those principles that in considering an application for reconsideration the reconsideration panel will not substitute its view of the evidence for that of the panel who heard the witnesses.[18]Further while the views of the professional witnesses must be properly considered by a panel deciding on release, the panel is not bound to accept their assessment. The panel must however make clear in its reasons why it is disagreeing with the assessment of the witnesses. Procedural unfairness[19]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.[20]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.[21]The overriding objective is to ensure that the Applicant's case was dealt with justly. Error of law[22]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.[23]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. Other Transfer to Open Conditions[24]The test to be applied when considering the question of transfer to open conditions is the subject of a well-established line of authorities going back to R (Hill) v Parole Board [2011] EWHC 809 (Admin) and including R (Rowe) v Parole Board [2013] EWHC 3838 (Admin) , R (Hutt) v Parole Board [2018] EWHC 1041 (Admin) . The test for transfer to open conditions is different from the test for release on licence and the two decisions must be approached separately and the correct test applied in each case. The panel must identify the factors which have led it to make its decision. The four factors the panel must take into account when applying the test are:(a) the progress of the prisoner in addressing and reducing their risk;(b) the likeliness of the prisoner to comply with conditions of temporary release(c) the likeliness of the prisoner absconding; and(d) the benefit the prisoner is likely to derive from open conditions.[25]In Oyston [2000] PLR 45 , at paragraph 47 Lord Bingham said:
" It seems to me generally desirable that the Board should identify in broad terms the matters judged by the Board as pointing towards and against a continuing risk of offending and the Board's reasons for striking the balance that it does. Needless to say, the letter should summarise the considerations which have in fact led to the final decision. It would be wrong to prescribe any standard form of Decision Letter and it would be wrong to require elaborate or impeccable standards of draftsmanship. "
Reconsideration as a discretionary remedy[26]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[27]The Respondent offered no representations. Discussion Ground[28]The Applicant's legal adviser submits that the approach of the panel to allegations faced by the Applicant (and not subsequently leading to a criminal conviction) was procedurally unfair. Discussion[29]This ground arises in circumstances where the Applicant was recalled to prison. Two allegations had been made relating to incidents which were said to involve violence towards a female partner. As noted above, the Applicant is serving a sentence of life imprisonment for the offence of murder.[30]The Applicant was first released by the Parole Board from prison in May 2015. He returned to custody in January 2016 following the commission of a burglary. He was released in July 2016 and recalled three weeks later as a result of an arrest for an allegation of criminal damage. He was released again in January 2017. He was recalled once again in July 2018. The reason for this recall was allegations regarding a robbery, these matters did not result in a conviction. However, during the time that the Applicant was in custody (on the 2018 recall) he was convicted of assaulting prison officers and received a 16 week custodial sentence. At this time the Applicant also undertook the Kaizen programme relating to addressing violence and spent some time on a specialist unit to consolidate the behavioural work. The Applicant was released once again in June 2024.[31]In September 2025 the Applicant was arrested in relation to two allegations of domestic violence. The allegations were that on one occasion the Applicant grabbed the victim's neck causing bruising. The second alleged assault occurred a few days later when the Applicant was said to have hit the victim causing bruising and black eyes and bite marks to her arms. The victim had also alleged to the police that she had been a victim of coercive and controlling behaviour.[32]The incidents were investigated by the police but did not lead to charges because the Applicant's partner had withdrawn support for any prosecution. There was a considerable amount of material on the dossier which had been provided by the police relating to the incident and their investigation.[33]The first incident was recorded as a call to the emergency services. The Applicant's partner was asking for assistance and reporting that she had been strangled and punched in the face by her partner. The Applicant's partner did not provide an exact address to follow-up this allegation.[34]The second allegation also began with an emergency call from the Applicant's partner. The caller indicated that the partner had " smashed up " her vehicle, hit her on the face and was trying to look for her. Police officers located the Applicant's partner in the street and saw injuries including two black eyes bruising, a cut to the nose, bruising to the forehead and bruising to the left arm. The Applicant's partner told the police at that time that she had been assaulted by her partner and gave a first name. She also said that the partner had assaulted her many times before.[35]The Applicant was arrested in relation to these incidents. He denied physical violence and said that his partner had fallen out of a car which had caused the injuries.[36]The Applicant had a history of violence including the obvious index offence. The Applicant's COM noted, in her report, that the Applicant had been the subject of previous allegations of domestic abuse. Historically there had been multiple callouts to previous partners claiming that the Applicant had assaulted them. There had been no convictions for domestic violence, however the view of the COM was that the Applicant displayed a pattern of behaviour relating to violence and relationships.[37]The Applicant's COM also indicated a concern because the partner (involved in these allegations) had substance misuse difficulties and had recently been released from a psychiatric ward. The concern was that the Applicant, despite having undertaken a number of substantial behavioural programs and thinking skills programmes, had befriended an obviously vulnerable female. The Applicant had also not disclosed the relationship despite there being a licence condition requiring him to do so.[38]Parole Board panels, when considering allegations, are required to apply the published Parole Board Guidance on Allegations and also the case of Pearce. In brief the panel is required to consider whether the allegation is relevant to risk. This clearly was an allegation which was relevant to risk. The panel are then obliged to consider all evidence relating to the allegations including evidence from the prisoner. The panel should then determine whether there is sufficient evidence to reach any conclusion (relevant to risk) upon the basis of the allegations. If the panel conclude that there is a basis upon which a conclusion can be reached the panel must firstly consider whether sufficient information and evidence is available to reach a conclusion applying the test of the balance of probabilities.[39]The court indicated in Pearce as follows:
"( vi) In some circumstances, however, the Board may not be able to make findings of fact as to the truth of an allegation either because of an inability to obtain sufficiently reliable evidence or because it would be unfair to expect the prisoner to give an answer to the allegation when he is facing criminal or prison disciplinary proceedings in relation to that allegation. "(vii) In such circumstances the Board, having regard to public safety, may take into account the allegation or allegations and give it or them such weight as it considers appropriate in a holistic assessment of all the information before it, where it is concerned that there is a serious possibility that those allegations may be true. But the Board must proceed with considerable caution in this exercise because of the consequences of its decision on the prisoner. Procedural fairness requires the Board to give the prisoner the opportunity to make submissions about how the Board ought to proceed. There may be circumstances where, because of the inadequacy of the information available to the Board, it concludes that it should not take account of an allegation at all. There may also be circumstances where the information is less than would be desired, but the allegation causes sufficient concern as to risk that the Board treats it as relevant. Its assessment of the weight to be attached to an allegation is subject to the constraints of public law rationality."
[40]In this case it is clear that the panel concluded that they were not in a position to reach a conclusion " on the balance of probabilities ".[41]The Applicant's legal adviser argues the panel failed to reach their conclusions objectively and failed to take account of the competing evidence relating to the incident. The Applicant's legal adviser points out that the Applicant had explained that his partner had not been assaulted but had fallen from a car on an earlier occasion. It was suggested that she had in fact been upset because the Applicant would not buy her more alcohol and therefore maliciously accused the Applicant of assaulting her. The Applicant was therefore submitting that the Applicant's partner was untruthful about the incident for malicious reasons.[42]It is also submitted that the panel had statements from the Applicant's friend and a family member both of whom provided evidence contrary to that of the Applicant's partner namely that in the case of one witness the incident of the Applicant's partner falling from the car was physically observed. In the case of the other witness that the Applicant's partner was unreliable.[43]As noted above the panel had a number of police witness statements. The allegation by the partner had been made to the emergency services and was clear in its description of the assault which had been perpetrated by the Applicant. The police also arrived on the scene finding the victim with what appeared to be recent injuries. It is well understood that victims in these circumstances often resile from there contemporaneous descriptions of violence for fear of repercussions or because of loyalty towards the partner. However the panel were entitled to take account of the fact that the complaint by the Applicant's partner was made spontaneously after an emergency call to the police. This evidence was coupled with the fact that the police found the partner and immediately observed the described injuries. The panel, in my determination were entitled to draw strong inferences from this police evidence.[44]The panel also placed considerable weight upon the fact that the Applicant had formed a relationship with a clearly vulnerable female. He had also upon his own admission been involved with the partner in accessing alcohol which was a well-documented risk factor in the Applicant's case.[45]In the light of the Applicant's propensity to violence in the past and the evidence of allegations of domestic incidents in the past, the panel in my determination appropriately approached the issue of the risk of serious harm to partners.[46]The panel were entitled to take a holistic view of the Applicant's history of domestic violence and background of dishonesty and untruthfulness in relation to his behaviour. The panel were not assessing the matter in terms of a criminal trial but applying the lesser test set out in the case of Pearce.[47]I am therefore not persuaded that the panel acted with procedural unfairness in their approach to the assessment of the allegations. The allegations were assessed in accordance with the law as set out in the case of Pearce . The panel determined that there was a serious possibility that the allegations may be true and that they were clearly relevant to risk. The added concern of the panel was that the Applicant had made a conscious decision to associate with a highly vulnerable female despite the fact that he was aware of his own risks relating to those in domestic circumstances with whom he spent time.[48]For this reason I do not find that there was evidence of procedural irregularity in this case. I am satisfied that the panel applied the law relating to allegations appropriately and had sufficient evidence upon which to reach the conclusion that they did.[49]In general terms this was a case where no professionals were supporting release. There were concerns about the Applicant's ability to manage his propensity to violence and misuse of drugs and alcohol in the community. For these reasons the panel concluded that the Applicant's risk could not be safely managed in the community and therefore concluded that it remained necessary in order to protect the public from serious harm that he remain confined.[50]As indicated therefore I do not find that this case engages reconsideration. Decision[51]For the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the decision was irrational or procedurally unfair and accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused. HH Stephen Dawson 03 June 2026