Lake, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 133 (10 June 2026) [2026] PBRA 133

PBRA

Lake, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 133 (10 June 2026)

[2026] PBRA 133 · 2026-04-20

[1]This is an application by Lake (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of a Parole Board panel dated the 20 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. The papers are:a. The dossier now running to 167 numbered pages including the decision, the subject of this application.

b. The grounds submitted by the Applicant. Request for Reconsideration

[4]The application for reconsideration is dated 8 th May 2026. I received the papers on 21 st May 2026.

[5]The 'grounds' submitted by the Applicant are lengthy and hand-written. Much of the text is concerned with matters which have no relevance to the rationality of the decision which was based on the evidence within the dossier and heard at the oral hearing. The grounds are accompanied by a letter from one of the Applicant's family members concerning correspondence between her and the Community Offender Manager (COM).

[6]I summarise the relevant grounds advanced as follows: Procedural unfairnessa. The COM gave false information to the panel: i. As to the number of meetings between her and the Applicant. In effect rather than eight meetings there had only been four and a half. ii. As to her knowledge of the postcode of land on which the Applicant might live if released. iii. That the Applicant had " targeted women with families with children ".

b. The evidence given by both the professionals was tainted by " extreme bias ". Irrationality

c. The difficulties alleged to be present in the imposition of a tagging condition to licence conditions were overstated - or mis-stated.

d. The Applicant has no desire to form a new relationship with a woman and any suggestion to the contrary is false. All his previous relationships had been started at the instigation of the women concerned.

e. The Applicant only became aware of the presence of children after he had begun a relationship.

f. The Applicant was innocent of the crimes of which he was convicted.

g. There are factual errors within the decision: i. The Applicant has three children not two. ii. The report concerning the exact nature of his previous employment was inaccurate.

h. The Applicant has developed skills which would enable him to be self-sufficient on release.

i. The proposal that the Applicant live on land he had purchased with the intention of living in a caravan on it if released on licence was irrationally rejected by the panel.

j. The Applicant has saved enough to ensure that when released he will not be a " burden on the state ".

k. The Applicant was innocent of the offences of which he was convicted and thus poses no risk of serious harm to any individual or group. Background

[7]The Applicant is now 76 years old. In 2017 he was convicted after trial of rape of a child under 13 years old and three offences of sexual assault of a child under 13. He was sentenced to an extended determinate sentence of 18 years (17 years in custody and one year extended licence). Current parole review

[8]The case was referred to the Parole Board in April 2025.

[9]The panel heard from the Prison Offender Manager, the COM and the Applicant. Neither professional witness recommended release in their reports or at the hearing. The Relevant Law

[10]The panel correctly set out in its decision dated 20 th April 2026 the test for release. 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)). 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]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. "

The reply on behalf of the Secretary of State (the Respondent)

[20]The Respondent has not submitted representations in respect of this application. Discussion

[21]I have studied the dossier and the decision together with the submissions of the Applicant. The decision makes it clear at paragraphs 2.4-2.7 and 3.1-3.11 why it accepted the evidence and the recommendations of the professionals and explains clearly why it decided that the plans devised by the Applicant for his release did not in their opinion amount to sufficient protection for those who would or might be at risk from the Applicant after release. In addition, it noted that the Applicant had assaulted a fellow prisoner by headbutting him as recently as 2023 and the Applicant's admitted intention of doing exactly as he pleased upon release whatever the conditions of licence which might be imposed by the Board.

[22]The decision is clearly reasoned and comes to a clearly rational conclusion based on the unanimous recommendations of the professional witnesses. Decision

[23]Accordingly, this application is refused. Sir David Calvert-Smith 10 th June 2026