Summerfield, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 130 (05 June 2026) [2026] PBRA 130

PBRA

Summerfield, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 130 (05 June 2026)

[2026] PBRA 130 · 2026-04-27

[1]This is an application by Summerfield (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of an oral hearing panel dated 27 April 2026 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

[3]I have considered the application on the papers. These are the oral hearing decision, the dossier consisting of 336 pages and the application for reconsideration. Request for Reconsideration

[4]The application for reconsideration is dated 11 May 2026 drafted by legal representatives on behalf of the Applicant. It submits that the decision was procedurally unfair and irrational.

[5]The submission is supplemented by written arguments to which reference will be made in the Discussion section below. Background

[6]The Applicant received a sentence of imprisonment for public protection on 11 May 2007 for conspiracy to rob. His tariff set at five years one month expired in June 2012.

[7]The Applicant was 33 years old at the time of sentencing and is now 52 years old. He has been released and recalled three times on this sentence. In April 2017 he was released following a Parole Board decision and recalled in July 2017. In October 2023 he was released following a Parole Board decision and recalled in June 2024. He was again released by executive release in March 2025 and recalled in May 2025. Current parole review

[8]The Applicant's case was referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State (the Respondent) in June 2025 to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to direct his release. If the Board did not consider it appropriate to direct release, it was invited to advise the Respondent whether the Applicant should be transferred to open conditions.

[9]The case proceeded to an oral hearing via videoconference on 23 April 2026. The panel consisted of three independent members. It heard oral evidence from the Applicant together with his Prison Offender Manager and Community Offender Manager. The Applicant was legally represented throughout the hearing. The Respondent was not represented by an advocate. The Relevant Law 10.The panel correctly sets out in its decision dated 27 April 2026 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)

[11]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)).

[12]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)).

[13]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 14.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. 15.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. " 16.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). 17.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. 18.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. 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;

(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. The reply on behalf of the Secretary of State 22.The Respondent in response to the application confirmed that the Applicant " had full sight of the security report as well as his dossier " and that " all information provided to the Panel was also provided to [the Applicant]." Discussion 23.The Applicant's four grounds are based on procedural unfairness and irrationality. With regard to procedural unfairness the Applicant submits that there was failure to disclose to him all the material on which the panel relied and that the panel relied on allegations to come to conclusions on risk. With regard to irrationality the Applicant submits that the panel's conclusions in the light of unproven allegations, his enhanced status, the support of his offender managers and unsupported findings regarding drug use were irrational. 24.The Security Report listed a number of entries relating to drugs and instances of inappropriate behaviour. The entries were graded. The panel, and the Applicant who was represented, were able to question the professionals about the entries; the Applicant gave evidence to the panel. There was no evidence to suggest that there was material available to the panel which had not been disclosed to him. His representative did not request an adjournment to make further enquiries. The Respondent confirms that there was no other information that was not disclosed to the Applicant. I am satisfied that there is no basis for this ground of unfairness. 25.The panel carefully considered the allegations and properly applied the principles in Pearce in considering them. In fairness to the Applicant, taking into account his strong denial and the fact that there was little to support the allegation, the panel did not make a finding that the Applicant had acted in the way alleged. 26.For those reasons the ground relating to procedural unfairness cannot succeed. 27.With regard to irrationality the panel did not find the allegations giving rise to recall had been established, the panel noting the positive entries of the Applicant and noted the recommendation of the offender managers. The panel however was obliged to make its own assessment of risk on the basis of the evidence before it, including the evidence of the Applicant. The panel had not attached weight to the allegations as noted above. With regard to the use of drugs the Applicant submits that there was no evidence of positive testing or possession or admissions or observations. The panel was perfectly entitled to reject the negative tests which clearly could not be samples that he had supplied in the light of his admitted use of pregabalin. There was no irrationality in rejecting the submission that there was an error in the testing and conclude rather that the Applicant may have persuaded another prisoner to switch samples. On the basis of its reasoned assessment the panel could not direct release as it was concerned about the Applicant's use of drugs, his minimisation of the index offence and the necessity to undertake further risk reduction work before release. In addition, the support of the witnesses was not unqualified in that they also agreed that the Applicant would benefit from undertaking further risk reduction work. 28.None of those reasons for not directing release could be described as irrational and in those circumstances, this ground also cannot succeed. Decision 29.For the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the decision was irrational or unfair and accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused. Barbara Mensah 05 June 2026