Jenkins, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 132 (11 June 2026) [2026] PBRA 132

PBRA

Jenkins, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 132 (11 June 2026)

[2026] PBRA 132 · 2026-04-09

[1]This is an application by Jenkins (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of a Parole Board panel in May 2026, following an oral hearing on 9 th April 2026, not to direct his 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.a. The dossier now containing 268 pages including the decision; the subject of this application.

b. The grounds of appeal/request for reconsideration are dated 12 th May 2026. Request for Reconsideration

[4]The grounds submitted in support of the request for reconsideration are lengthy. They are set out in summary below. "These representations are submitted on behalf of [the Applicant] pursuant to the reconsideration period applicable to Parole Board release decisions. The application is referring to the decision dated the 8 th of May 2026 and it is submitted that the decision was irrational in light of the evidence before the Panel. It is respectfully submitted that the decision cannot properly be reconciled with the professional evidence heard at the oral hearing, the extensive successful testing in open conditions, the evidence of sustained behavioural stability, the accepted evidence of insight and emotional development, the absence of any significant custodial concerns, and the detailed risk management plan placed before the Panel. It is accepted that reconsideration is a narrow jurisdiction and that disagreement with the outcome alone is insufficient. However, this case goes beyond disagreement. The concern is that the Panel accepted the overwhelming majority of the positive evidence and professional opinion in [the Applicant's] favour, yet nonetheless continued detention on the basis of speculative future concerns which were capable of management in the community. "[the Applicant] fully accepts the seriousness of the index offence. Nothing within this application seeks to minimise the violence involved, the impact upon the victim, or [the Applicant's] previous offending history. The sentencing remarks were serious and reflected legitimate concern regarding the nature of the offence [the Applicant's] history. However, the issue before the Panel was not whether the offence was serious, but whether continued detention remained necessary for the protection of the public. The statutory question was whether the identified risks could now be safely managed in the community. "The evidence before the Panel demonstrated significant progress over a sustained period. [the Applicant] had successfully progressed to open conditions and undertaken extensive Release on Temporary Licence (ROTL) testing without incident. The evidence before the Panel confirmed that he had completed numerous day releases and overnight releases, including Approved Premises placements, without breach, instability, violence, or concerns arising. He had maintained employment in the community and received positive feedback regarding his work. There was no evidence before the Panel of adjudications, violent conduct in custody, intimidation, or behavioural deterioration. The evidence instead demonstrated sustained compliance and stability over a significant period of time. "The Prison Offender Manager gave positive evidence regarding [the Applicant's] progress. The hearing note records that he had undertaken in excess of fifteen ROTLs successfully and that he had developed a constructive working relationship with staff. The POM described improvements in his emotional regulation and insight into offending behaviour. Importantly, she confirmed there had been difficult conversations and stressful situations during his sentence which he had managed appropriately. One significant example concerned information disclosed to him regarding his daughter. Staff had anticipated that this could lead to emotional instability or behavioural difficulties, yet the evidence was that [the Applicant] regulated himself appropriately, engaged with staff, and managed the situation in a mature and controlled manner. That evidence was directly relevant to the historical concerns regarding impulsivity and aggression. "The evidence regarding insight was similarly positive. The POM and psychologist both confirmed that [the Applicant's] presentation and understanding of the offence had changed over time. The evidence was that he no longer approached the offence with the same defensiveness previously identified and was now able to acknowledge shame, responsibility, and the excessive nature of the violence used. The hearing note records the POM stating that she believed [the Applicant] had shown good insight into the offence, particularly more recently. The psychologist similarly confirmed that he had become better able to identify alternative responses and discuss the offence in a more reflective and honest way. "The professional evidence before the Panel supported release. The Community Offender Manager formally supported release and expressly stated that, in her professional opinion, [the Applicant] could be safely managed in the community subject to the proposed risk management plan. The psychology evidence was also materially favourable. The PRA concluded that [the Applicant's] risk of general violence would not be imminent following release and identified stability and structure as the key protective factors. Importantly, no professional witness suggested that further custody-based intervention was required before risk could safely be managed. The evidence instead was that ongoing work could appropriately continue within the community under licence and supervision. "The Panel also had before it a detailed and comprehensive risk management plan. This included Approved Premises placement, probation supervision, police involvement through the IOM framework, GPS monitoring, curfew arrangements, drug and alcohol monitoring, safeguarding oversight, structured employment, and continued professional intervention. The Panel itself adjourned the matter in order to obtain additional clarification regarding the accommodation and risk management arrangements. Those clarifications were subsequently provided. The COM confirmed that Approved Premises accommodation was anticipated and that structured support and move-on planning would be in place. "Against that background, the refusal decision is difficult to reconcile with the evidence accepted by the Panel. The Panel accepted the evidence of progress, insight, emotional regulation, successful testing, employment, compliance, and positive professional opinion. However, detention was nevertheless continued largely because of concerns relating to future intimate relationships and possible future emotional instability. "It is accepted that the dossier contains references to previous domestic abuse concerns and problematic relationship behaviour. However, the evidence before the Panel was that [the Applicant] was not presently in a relationship, there was no evidence of current escalation, and professionals accepted that this area of risk could be managed in the community through licence conditions, supervision, monitoring, and ongoing 1:1 work. The concern arising from the decision is that the Panel appears to have required [the Applicant] to demonstrate safety within a future relationship that does not presently exist. "No prisoner can eliminate all future risk. The relevant legal question is whether the prisoner poses more than a minimal risk of harm. The evidence before the Panel strongly suggested that he did not pose more than a minimal risk of harm. The combination of successful open conditions testing, sustained compliance, structured employment, positive professional evidence, and an extensive management plan provided substantial evidence that any identified risks could be safely managed in the community. "The Panel also appears to have given insufficient weight to the purpose and significance of open conditions testing. [the Applicant] had already been trusted in the community through ROTL, employment, and overnight releases, and had complied. Open conditions exist precisely to test whether an individual can safely function within progressively less restrictive environments. In this case, the testing was successful. If successful open testing, positive custodial behaviour, professional support for release, and robust licence arrangements are insufficient to demonstrate manageability, it becomes difficult to identify what further evidence could realistically have been produced. "Further concern also arises regarding the overall conduct of the hearing. It is acknowledged that Panels are entitled to robustly test evidence and challenge submissions. However, there were occasions during the hearing where the Panel Chair's approach appeared dismissive and unnecessarily abrupt toward [the Applicant] and aspects of the evidence being advanced on his behalf. There were also repeated periods of questioning where witnesses were asked substantially similar questions on a number of occasions despite their evidence having already been clearly given. The overall approach at times appeared to minimise or discount favourable professional evidence rather than engage with it in a balanced manner. "The concern is not one of bias, and it is accepted that the Panel was entitled to test the evidence carefully. However, the manner in which the hearing proceeded gave rise to concern that the positive evidence and progression were not always approached with an open or receptive mindset. That concern is reinforced by the decision itself, which appears to accept many of the positive features of the case while ultimately giving them limited practical weight." Background

[5]In December 2023 the Applicant, then aged 35, was sentenced to an Extended Determinate Sentence of five years, with the custody period being four years and the extension period one year. Current parole review

[6]His case was referred to the Parole Board by the SoSJ in August 2025 and directed to oral hearing by a Parole Board member on 10 th May 2025. The Relevant Law

[7]The panel correctly sets out in its decision letter the test for release. Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)

[8]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)).

[9]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)). This case qualifies for reconsideration under both rule 28(1) & (2). Irrationality 10.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. 11.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. " 12.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). 13.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. 14.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. 15.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. The reply on behalf of the Secretary of State

[16]The Respondent has submitted no representations in response to this application. Discussion 17.The application essentially is based on a simple ground. The professional witnesses all considered that any remaining risk which the Applicant posed to members of the public upon release would be manageable with appropriate licence conditions and it is submitted that the reasoning process summarised at paragraph 15 above was insufficient to justify the panel's decision not to follow the recommendations.

[18]I have studied the decision at paragraphs 3.8-3.10 and 4.4-4.8 in which the decision is 'rationalised'. In summary:a. The Applicant continues to 'justify' and 'minimise' the index offences.

b. The panel assess his current risk of causing serious harm to a future intimate partner as high, and, because of his previous speed in entering a new relationship in order to secure accommodation following his entering into such a relationship, the 'imminence' of that risk is also 'high'.

c. His previous, and therefore possible future, difficulties within intimate relationships and the resultant risks of harm to a partner have not been sufficiently explored during his sentence, such that the panel could be confident that such a risk could not arise and result in the infliction of serious harm.

d. With those risks in mind the proposed licence conditions/risk management plan may well not be sufficient to manage such risk before they resulted in serious harm being caused to another by the Applicant.

[19]While I can understand the disappointment felt by the Applicant I have come to the conclusion that while another panel may 'rationally' have reached a different conclusion the passages from paragraphs 3.8-3.10 and 4.4-4.8. summarised above cannot be categorised as "irrational" within the criteria set by the authorities cited above.

[20]This application is therefore refused. Sir David Calvert-Smith 11 June 2026