Jeffery, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 135 (16 June 2026) [2026] PBRA 135

PBRA

Jeffery, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 135 (16 June 2026)

[2026] PBRA 135 · 2026-05-13

[1]This is an application by Jeffery (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of an oral hearing dated the 23 April 2026 not to 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 full parole dossier running to 350 pages and the application for reconsideration dated 13 May 2026. On the 25 May 2026 PPCS provided an email to confirm that they did not seek to make any representations. Request for Reconsideration

[4]The application for reconsideration is dated 13 May 2026.

[5]The grounds for seeking a reconsideration are as follows: Procedural Unfairness and Irrationality.

[6]Those instructed argue that the panel placed over reliance on the absence of overnight ROTLs and certain aspects of the risk management plan (RMP) which required clarification. They argue that the decision not to release the applicant was procedurally unfair on the basis that the panel ought to have used its case management powers to adjourn the case for further enquiries to be made before concluding the case. It seems, by implication, that those instructed also argue that the panel could have adjourned the hearing sooner in the review process to allow for overnight ROTLs to take place, also.

[7]Those instructed further submit that the panel's decision not to release the Applicant is irrational given the positive progress the Applicant has made during his sentence, his positive engagement in open conditions, the lack of any further core treatment required, and the clear recommendations of report writers. Those instructed also argue that at the hearing there was substantial evidence of therapeutic progress and behavioural stability and other evidence which is "overwhelmingly indicative of reduced and manageable risk" . They conclude by submitting " ...That approach was irrational for several reasons. First, there exists no legal requirement that overnight ROTL must occur in every case prior to release. Second, the professional witnesses expressly stated that overnight testing was not essential in this case. Third, the evidence already available from open conditions and extensive day ROTL constituted real-world behavioural testing within the community. Fourth, the residual risks identified by professionals were all capable of management through structured licence conditions, Approved Premises placement, probation oversight, monitoring, recall powers, and ongoing supervision". Background

[8]The Applicant is serving an extended determinate sentence imposed on the 19 February 2018 which comprises of 12 years custody with an extended period of four years. The sentence was imposed for the offence of s18 Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent. The Applicant's parole eligibility dates are shown to be the 7 December 2025 and his conditional release date (CRD) is in December 2029. The Applicant was 30 years old at the time of sentence. The offence was committed against an elderly man who was unknown to Applicant. The sentencing Judge described the attack as " gratuitous, vicious and unprovoked, sustained violence on moderately elderly, lone man" . The victim was punched, knee-stuck, pulled from his vehicle and kicked repeatedly rendering him unconscious. At the time of the index offence the Applicant was heavily under the influence of alcohol and taking alcohol alongside other anti-psychotic medication. The Applicant was unable to recall the circumstances of the index offence when questioned by the police but accepted his guilty and showed remorse after seeing CCTV footage. Current parole review

[9]This was the Applicant's first parole review. His case was considered by an MCA Panel in July 2025 and an oral hearing directed.

[10]The Applicant's oral hearing took place on the 20 April 2026. A three-member panel of the Board convened to hear the Applicant's case, all independent members. Evidence was taken from the Applicant's Community Offender Manager (COM) and Prison Offender Manager (POM). The Applicant was represented throughout. The panel considered a parole dossier running to 347 numbered pages. Closing written submissions were provided dated 20 April 2026. There was no information which was not disclosed to the Applicant. The Relevant Law

[11]The panel correctly sets out in its decision letter dated 23 April 2026 the test for release. Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)

[12]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)).

[13]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

[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) 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.

[19]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 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. 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. The overriding objective is to ensure that the Applicant's case was dealt with justly. Error of law

[23]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.

[24]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 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]On the 28 May 2026 an email was provided by the Public Protection Group to confirm that no representation would be offered. Discussion

[27]I have carefully considered all of the information available to me, and I note that this case was identified by the panel itself as being " a finely balanced decision" . I concur with this assessment.

[28]Dealing first with the issue of procedural unfairness, as noted above, those instructed argue that the panel " determined the case adversely on an incomplete evidential basis" . They submit that the panel erred by not adjourning the Applicant's case for updated information pertaining to certain matters which remained outstanding following the hearing.

[29]I have carefully reviewed both closing legal submissions (dated 20 April 2026) and the panel's decision. Following the hearing closing legal submissions were provided and those instructed stating that " if the panel were minded they required (this) information before they could come to a fully informed decision when assessing risk, we highlight the correct way to address this would be through a short adjournment on papers for further directions/clarity surrounding the risk management plan, with targeted directions". The panel was plainly alive to these submissions and in paragraph 4.10 of its decision states " the panel considered whether an adjournment was necessary in fairness to [the Applicant] and whether additional information, such as an OPD Formulation and a full assessment from IIRMs was necessary. The panel determine that whilst this information would be helpful there would still be insufficient evidence of testing in the community through lack of overnight ROTLs and of developing insight into alcohol use and prevention planning from [the Applicant]. "

[30]From the above, it is clear to me that the panel did consider whether an adjournment was necessary before concluding its risk assessment, however, as is it's right it did not believe an adjudication to be necessary. This is because, in the panel's own assessment, a short period of adjournment would not allay other assessed concerns, namely incomplete testing in open conditions, concerns around the Applicant's insight into his alcohol use and the link to risk (as set out in detail in paragraph 3.14) and the need for further prevention planning. In my view this is entirely the panel's prerogative, and I find no evidence that the panel acted unfairly by failing to direct an adjournment prior to concluding its risk assessment, as suggested by those representing the Applicant.

[31]The second ground raised is that of irrationality. Those representing the Applicant submit that the panel placed over reliance on the fact that the Applicant had not completed any overnight ROTLs at the point of his review. They argue that there was clear evidence in the papers and at the hearing about the progress the Applicant has made since sentence, his positive compliance during day releases, and positive recommendations for release from professional witnesses. No further core risk reduction work was recommended, and all outstanding treatment needs were described as being met.

[32]In my assessment the panel was alive to the fact that the case was finely balanced and refers to this in terms in paragraph 4.11 of the decision. Indeed, throughout the decision there are multiple reference to the positive progress the Applicant has made during the review period. However, balanced against this at paragraphs 4.7 and 4.8 of the decision is a comprehensive summary of the panel's ongoing concerns and analysis of the reasons why they did not consider the Applicant to meet the codified test for release. This includes ongoing concerns around the Applicant's insight into the link between his alcohol use and risk and the Applicant's ability to manage his own risk once the robust external controls fall away. It is evidence to me that the panel concluded, as is its right, that at the time of the hearing the Applicant had simply not yet been sufficiently tested in open conditions to a level commensurate with the panel's assessment of risk.

[33]In my assessment this is understandable in all the circumstances, based on the evidence before it. Whilst overnight ROTLs are not a legal requirement, they do afford a different level/type of testing than day releases. Also, given the concerns raised by the panel at the hearing about the Applicant's insight into a primary risk factor (alcohol use), I can understand why the panel may have preferred a more extensive period of testing and a more gradual reintegration back into the community.

[34]Furthermore, although professionals opined that stringent licence conditions would be sufficient to manage risk in the community, the Parole Board has a duty to look at risk indefinitely. Whilst the proposed RMP was robust, the panel was clearly cognisant that the stringent conditions relied upon would fall away over time, leaving increased reliance on the Applicant's to manage his own risk. This plainly troubled the panel, who assessed the Applicant to lack insight at times. Again, in such circumstances it is understandable that the panel favoured a period of further, robust testing in open conditions prior to release.

[35]In summary, in my view, the panel completed its own independent assessment of risk and provided a detailed, account of the evidence taken and its findings. The decision is evidenced based and it includes a good amount of critical analysis which sets out how the panel came to its judgment and why it formed a divergent view to professional witnesses. I do not find the panel's rational not to release to be irrational, I find it to be well argued and carefully balanced, based on the evidence before me. Decision

[36]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. Heidi Leavesley 16 June 2026