Muggleton, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 13 (09 January 2026) [2026] PBRA 13

PBRA
Muggleton, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 13 (09 January 2026)
[2026] PBRA 13 · 2025-11-25
[1]This is an application by Muggleton (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of a single panel member of the Parole Board dated the 25 November 2025. The decision was to vary the licence but not to terminate it.[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 single member and the representations by the Secretary of State (the Respondent). Request for Reconsideration[4]The application for reconsideration is dated 15 December 2025.[5]The grounds for seeking a reconsideration are set out below. Background[6]The Applicant is serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection. He was sentenced on the 30 March 2012. He was aged 28 at the time of sentence. He was aged 42 at the time of the panel decision. He was released on licence by the Parole Board on the 23 November 2022. The index offence was attempted murder. The facts of the offence were that the victim of the attempted murder was his then partner. The partner was pregnant. The Applicant had been drinking heavily, and the partner had threatened to exclude him from contact with the child. On the day of the offence the Applicant took a Stanley knife and formed an intention to kill his partner. As his partner entered a room she was pushed onto a bed and the Applicant began to use the knife on the partner's throat. The partner mentioned the baby and the Applicant then stopped. The victim struggled and freed herself, but she was chased and caught in the garden of the home where she was punched. Other people approached and the Applicant then stood over the victim and cut his wrists over her. Blood fell on the victim. He explained later that the incident had happened because he wanted his partner to know how bad she had made him feel and what she had driven him to. Current parole review[7]The referral from the Respondent requested the Parole Board to consider whether it would be appropriate to terminate the Applicant's licence. If not terminated the Parole Board were asked to consider whether there should be any suspension of the supervisory elements of the licence or amendment of any licence conditions. The decision of the single member was to suspend the supervision element and to amend some licence conditions but not to terminate.[8]The referral was considered by a single member of the Parole Board. The date of the review was 25 November 2025. The single member considered a dossier which included a termination report from the Applicant's Probation Officer. The recommendation of the Probation Officer was to terminate the licence. The Relevant Law[9]The panel correctly sets out in its decision letter dated 25 November 2025 the test for termination of an IPP licence. 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)). Irrationality[12]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.[13]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. "[14]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).[15]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.[16]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.[17]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[18]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.[19]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.[20]The overriding objective is to ensure that the Applicant's case was dealt with justly. Error of law[21]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.[22]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[23]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[24]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[25]The Respondent offered no representations. Grounds and Discussion Ground 1[26]The Applicant submits that the decision of the single Parole Board member is irrational on the basis that the single member accepted that supervision could be terminated but retained licence conditions because of concerns about relationships and alcohol. So far as relationships are concerned it is submitted by the Applicant that he is not in a current relationship and has no plans to embark upon a relationship and therefore further time would not add to any information about the testing of a relationship in the future. It is submitted that because the Applicant would not be under formal supervision, the monitoring and checking of difficulties and challenges within any relationship would not, in any event, be monitored because of the suspension of supervision. Discussion[27]The panel member's rationale in relation to the retention of licence conditions was based upon the analysis of the index offence and of the Applicant's history which included a conviction for causing death by dangerous driving. The retention of the licence condition to disclose relationships would effectively mean that if the Applicant embarked upon a relationship, he would at the very least be required to inform his probation officer of the decision. The probation service would then be in a position to undertake reasonable background checks and possibly make suggestions about ensuring that the relationship remains positive and safe, both for any partner and possibly any children. In the light of the nature of the index offence I am not persuaded that this rationale of the single member can be considered to be irrational within the meaning set out above. I do not therefore consider that this is a case for reconsideration in relation to this ground. Ground 2[28]The Applicant similarly (to ground 1) submits that the concerns of the single member relating to alcohol and risk are misplaced. This is argued firstly because there had been no concerns about alcohol for some years before release from custody. There have also been no concerns about alcohol and risk since release from custody (during the last three years). Discussion[29]The single member took the view that in the light of the Applicant's history of problems with alcohol misuse in the past, the embedded drink in problems which led to the offences in the past, may present a risk in the future. It was the opinion of the single member that the admirable prosocial coping mechanisms, which have been used by the Applicant to date, need more time to become firmly embedded and demonstrated as being long-term. Again, the existence of licence conditions could support any potential problems in relation to alcohol in the sense that the Applicant could be supported to access relevant support services through the probation service even if he were not subject to formal supervision. I have considered the representations by the Applicant which have some merit, however I am not persuaded that the decision of the single member on this occasion can be characterised as irrational. It is clear, however, that the passage of time will increase the need to consider the presumption against retaining the licence, a matter which will no doubt be in the mind of any future panel considering this issue. Decision[30]For the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the decision was irrational and accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused. HH Stephen Dawson 09 January 2026