Haslam, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 127 (03 June 2026) [2026] PBRA 127

PBRA
Haslam, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 127 (03 June 2026)
[2026] PBRA 127 · 2026-05-08
[1]This is an application by Haslam (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, 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 18 May 2026.[5]The grounds for seeking a reconsideration are set out below. Background[6]The Applicant is serving an extended determinate sentence. The custodial period being 10 years and 10 months. The extension period is five years. The index offence was wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The Applicant had a dispute with a neighbour over noise. The Applicant was intoxicated and attacked the neighbour with a martial arts weapon and a knife. The attack was described by the sentencing judge as a " frenzied and uncontrolled attack ". The victim suffered serious injuries to his face and body and life changing facial scarring. The Applicant was aged 53 at the time of sentence. He was aged 60 at the time of the oral hearing. The Applicant had been convicted of offences of violence in the past including a conviction for causing grievous bodily harm with intent. 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. The Applicant was at the time of the oral hearing residing in an open prison.[8]The panel hearing took place on 29 April 2026. The Parole Board panel consisted of an independent chair a further independent member and a psychologist member of the Parole Board. Evidence was received from a Prison Offender Manager and a Community Offender Manager (COM). A dossier was considered. The Applicant was legally represented at the hearing and gave evidence. The Relevant Law[9]The panel correctly sets out in its decision the test for release. 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[24]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[25]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[26]The Respondent offered no representations. Discussion Ground 1[27]The Applicant indicates that he is of the opinion that he has been discriminated against because of the fact that he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Discussion[28]I have considered the panel's decision in this case. The panel notes that the Applicant has been thought to suffer from PTSD and that there have been references to the condition in the past. The panel's decision was not based upon the Applicant's PTSD although the panel took the view that there may be some connection between the index offending and this condition. I am not persuaded that there is evidence of discrimination in the way that the panel addressed the aspect of PTSD. Ground 2[29]The Applicant argues that he has not been released because he has not completed courses that he was not able to undertake or eligible for. Discussion[30]This matter arises in circumstances where the Applicant has served a considerable period of time in a closed prison. Although his offending was serious, in terms of psychological assessment he was apparently not assessed as suitable for behavioural interventions or programmes while he was in the closed prison. He has been transferred to an open prison where there would not be formal behavioural work available. The panel addressed this issue. The reality is that the professionals take the view that the Applicant has not had an opportunity to reflect upon and consider the background and triggers to the index offending and to the general aggressive approach by the Applicant which has resulted in occasional adjudications and concerns by prison staff.[31]Although sympathetic to the Applicant's position, a Parole Board panel and the Parole Board generally are not in a position to determine the behavioural work which is considered suitable for a prisoner. This decision is entirely a matter for the prisoner himself and the prison authorities. The Parole Board panel were concerned with assessing risk. That assessment relies to an extent upon a reassurance that, if released, the Applicant could be safely managed and the public not be at risk of serious harm. Within the panel hearing itself it appears that it was suggested (by professionals) that the Applicant should undertake some one-to-one work with professionals in the open prison. This will enable some work to be done in connection with understanding the triggers and background to the Applicant's index offence and to issues such as alcohol and misuse of drugs. I am not persuaded that this ground amounts to irrationality in the sense set out above. Ground 3[32]The Applicant indicates that he had not had opportunities to undertake overnight temporary leave in the community. The Applicant indicates that he had not been able to do so because of lack of funding and that he had had been trying to undertake this requirement during his time in the open prison. Discussion[33]The Parole Board panel addressed the issue of overnight temporary leave. So far as the opportunities were concerned there were two reasons why the overnight leave had not been undertaken. The first was that for a period of time when he was first at the open prison the Applicant indicated that he was not prepared to stay in probation accommodation and therefore would not undertake overnight leave. Later the Applicant changed his position and indicated that he was prepared to undertake periods of time staying in probation premises as part of the plans for preparing for release into the community. However there had been a number of obstacles since the change in the Applicant's position because of the release of prisoners under the fixed term recall arrangements. The Applicant also has limited finances and therefore could not secure sufficient funding to undertake temporary overnight leave. He is being supported by the Veterans Association.[34]The position so far as the Parole Board decision is concerned is that the panel were obliged to consider whether the Applicant's risk could be safely managed in the community. The panel pointed out in its decision that it supported the view of the COM in this case that the Applicant's ability to manage in the community has not been sufficiently tested. The Applicant is a somewhat volatile individual and has had difficult exchanges with both prison and probation staff. None of these exchanges led to violence, but they are a matter of concern particularly to the Applicant's COM who takes the view that additional work needs to be carried out to ensure that the Applicant understands the requirements of living in probation accommodation and also understands the requirements of adhering to licence conditions and supervision. It is apparent that the opportunities for the Applicant to undertake overnight leave have been limited because of matters beyond his control, however (as indicated above) the panel remained obliged to consider the Applicant's ability to manage his risk in the community which would be tested and demonstrated by a period of time in the community undertaking overnight leave. For this reason, I am not persuaded that this ground amounts to irrationality in the sense set out above. Ground 4[35]The Applicant indicates that his manner towards professionals and staff has been misunderstood in that he submits that, rather than refusing to comply with requirements relating to risk or not engaging, the Applicant argues that he is a challenging individual who questions the rationale of decisions that are being made. He submits that the panel have misunderstood the Applicant's presentation. The Applicant submits that he is willing to comply with licence conditions but is a challenging individual. Discussion[36]Although there are references within the panel's decision to the Applicant's relationship with professionals and the difficulties that have occurred, it is clear from the panel decision that these difficulties were not the basis upon which the panel reached its conclusion. The panel's decision was based upon two issues firstly the panel agreed with the COM, and a prison instructed psychologist, that the Applicant needed to undertake some one-to-one work which would be aimed at addressing identified outstanding treatment needs in particular addressing the management of alcohol use in the future and securing a full understanding of how the Applicant would address difficulties which originally led to the index offending. Although these matters should have been addressed during the course of the Applicant's sentence and in the closed estate, they had not been addressed, and the Parole Board panel were obliged to consider the issues in relation to the decision concerning release. The panel's final conclusion was that there was insufficient evidence that the Applicant would have the capacity to manage his risk of serious harm in the community. The panel took the view that further one-to-one work would be advantageous as would further temporary leave in the community both of which would reinforce the current risk management plan.[37]Having considered the decision in this case I am not persuaded that the decision amounted to irrationality in the sense set out above I therefore do not direct reconsideration. Decision[38]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