Bedding, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 142 (24 June 2026) [2026] PBRA 142
[1]This is an application by Bedding (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of a Panel of the Parole Board dated 12 May 2026, following an oral hearing, 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(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:(a) the decision of the Panel;(b) the application for reconsideration; and(c) the dossier now comprising 295 numbered pages. Request for Reconsideration[4]The application for reconsideration is dated 1 June 2026 and states that reconsideration is sought on the basis of irrationality in that t he Panel failed to give adequate weight to the unanimous professional recommendations and did not provide sufficient reasons for departing from those views. Background[5]The Applicant is serving a sentence of particular concern having on 3 August 2017, at the age of 68 and following a trial, received sentences of imprisonment totalling 15 years and six months together with a three year extended licence period for five offences of indecent assault upon a female aged under 14, five offences of gross indecency with a female aged under 14, two offences of buggery of a female aged under 16, four offences of indecent assault upon a male under 14 and two offences of buggery of a male under 16.[6]The parole eligibility date is given as 2 April 2026, the conditional release date is in April 2033 and the sentence expiry date is in January 2037.[7]The index offending involved a catalogue of penetrative and other sexual abuse of the utmost seriousness against the Applicant's son and daughter which extended over the period 1977 to 1984 when they were both young children aged respectively 6-12 and 6-10 years.[8]The Trial Judge in addressing the Applicant during sentencing said, " You are characterised by your son [...] as a coward and a hypocrite, I agree. Behind the façade of pastoral leader and father figure you have emerged in the evidence in this case as a predatory sexual pervert. From the mid 1970's to the mid 1980's you targeted your daughter [...] and your son [...] and worked out on them your depraved sexual fantasies. You treated both of them as your own sexual property and indulged yourself sexually upon them both........ You were a highly manipulative and depraved man."[9]The victims disclosed the abuse as adults many years after it had taken place.[10]At the time of his conviction and for a lengthy period during this sentence, the Applicant has maintained his innocence of any offending although he has begun to gradually accept elements of the abuse of which he was convicted.[11]The Applicant had no convictions prior to this offending nor has he been convicted of any further offences committed since 1984. Current parole review[12]The Applicant is now aged 76. His case was referred to the Parole Board in July 2025 by the Secretary of State for Justice (the Respondent) to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to direct his release.[13]His review was heard on 29 April 2026 by a Panel of the Board comprising three independent members, one of whom chaired the hearing.[14]The Panel considered the dossier and heard evidence from:(a) the Community Offender Manager (COM);(b) the Prison Offender Manager (POM);(c) a prison psychologist; and(d) the Applicant who was legally represented throughout.[15]On 12 May 2026 in its written decision the Panel declined to direct the Applicant's release. The Relevant Law[16]The Panel correctly sets out the test for release in its decision. Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)[17]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)).[18]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[19]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.[20]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. "[21]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).[22]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.[23]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.[24]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. 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 Respondent[26]By e-mail dated 3 June 2026 it was confirmed that the Respondent makes no representations in relation to the application. Discussion[27]In dealing with the grounds for reconsideration, it is necessary to stress certain matters of basic importance. The first is that the Reconsideration Mechanism is not a process by which the judgement of the Panel when assessing risk can be lightly interfered with. Nor is it a mechanism in which the member carrying out the reconsideration is entitled to substitute his/her view of the facts in place of those found by the Panel, unless, of course, it is manifestly obvious that there was an error of fact of an egregious nature which can be shown to have directly contributed to the conclusion arrived at by the Panel.[28]The second matter of material importance is that when deciding whether a decision of the Parole Board was irrational, due deference has to be given to the expertise of the Parole Board in making decisions relating to parole.[29]Finally, where a Panel arrives at a conclusion, exercising its judgement based on the evidence before it and having regard to the fact they saw and heard the witnesses, it would be inappropriate to direct that the decision be reconsidered unless it is manifestly obvious that there are compelling reasons for interfering with the decision of the Panel.[30]I have given careful consideration to the papers before me and, in particular, to the detailed representations made on behalf of the Applicant by his solicitors.[31]The Panel recognised that the professional witnesses supported the Applicant's release and examined their evidence and conclusions with care.[32]The Panel acknowledged the Applicant's "exemplary custodial conduct" and that throughout his sentence he had presented as polite and had engaged with the prison chaplaincy and completed victim awareness workbooks.[33]In addition, the Panel accepted that, once the index offending had ceased in 1984, the Applicant had not been convicted of any further offences and had enjoyed a positive relationship with a partner for several years until his arrest.[34]The Panel made a number of references in its decision to the evidence which it heard from the Applicant, recording, in particular, that, in its view, he did not know what triggers had resulted in him sexually abusing two children.[35]In addition, the Applicant told the Panel that he found it "really difficult" to fully accept the extent of the abuse of his daughter of which he had been convicted and he completely denied any serious sexual offending against her although he did acknowledge that he must have made threats that her mother would be harmed by "demons" if she disclosed his abuse.[36]Importantly, it would appear that in his evidence the Applicant for the first time accepted that he had abused another of his daughters who had previously made allegations against him which had not progressed to a conviction. Accordingly, the Panel made a finding of fact that, in unspecified ways, he had also sexually abused this child.[37]In reliance upon the evidence of the psychologist, the Panel found that the Applicant has the capacity to be sexually aroused by both male and female children and may have a direct sexual interest in children.[38]The Panel noted the evidence of the POM that the Applicant was not "at the final point of his acceptance " and the POM could not say " we are at the end of that journey " of disclosure. Further, the POM was unable to provide any account of the Applicant's motivations/triggers for his offending, and it was his opinion that, whilst the Applicant has insight into his circumstances at the time of the offending, he had limited insight into his offending behaviour.[39]The COM told the Panel that she had only met the Applicant once remotely and that he was still " on a journey of being able to admit it and open up slowly ".[40]The Panel went on to make a number of findings as follows:(a) The Applicant's account of his offending continues to contain significant denials, particularly of his most serious offending behaviour, and he minimises the period of time over which that offending took place. The Panel therefore concurred with the professionals' assessments that his journey towards fully accepting his offending behaviour is in its early stages.(b) The Panel was of the view that the Applicant's willingness/ability to be fully open and honest with professionals, while developing positively, is currently limited and it noted with concern his failure to be transparent about his abuse of his children with those around him in the community and, also, his denials of that offending, including after conviction, which extended over more than 30 years.(c) The Applicant was unable to explain how his feelings of stress at the time of the index offending translated into planned and persistent sexual abuse of his children. There was limited evidence of him having developed insight into his triggers for his offending behaviour in response to that stress and the Panel found that he struggled to identify how he might have acted differently during his years of offending.(d) The Panel found that the Applicant's risk factors included: attitudes supportive of sexual abuse of children; a capacity to be sexually aroused by children and sexual activity with children; a capacity for manipulation/control of others; sexual preoccupation; an ability to hide his sexual offending over an extended period of the several years over which it was occurring and for several decades after; isolation/loneliness and his presenting himself as being a person worthy of respect and trust.(e) For the reasons it set out, the Panel did not accept the professional assessments of future risk and, instead, took the view that the risk of further sexual contact offending was greater than low and that, should such offending occur, the risk of serious harm to children was high.(f) In the light of the evidence and its findings, the Panel was clearly exercised by the fact that the Applicant had not completed any core risk reduction work during his sentence to address his offending behaviour through the medium of appropriate programmes and it did not accept the professional view that such work was unnecessary, particularly given the evidence of the POM and also the psychiatrist that the Applicant " ......has not engaged in any specific intervention to support him in managing his risk as his risk is deemed to be too low to meet the criteria to engage with accredited interventions " (p.165 dossier ) and that bespoke one-to-one work had also not been made available to him.(g) The Panel found that the Applicant had limited support in the community and, for the reasons that it set out, the Panel did not find that his faith and involvement with the church was a positive or protective factor.(h) The Panel obviously gave careful consideration to the proposed risk management plan and noted that polygraph testing as a licence condition was not available in the Applicant's case. For the reasons it sets out at some length, the Panel found that no safeguards were proposed to be put in place to prevent further offending should the Applicant fail to be transparent with professionals and concluded that currently his risks were unmanageable in the community given that, in its view, his ability to be open and honest with professionals was in its early stages, there were specific ways, identified by the Panel, in which the Applicant has the ability to ingratiate himself with families in the community and he had not completed any offence-focused risk reduction work.(i) The Panel was concerned that the Applicant's willingness to comply and be open and honest had yet to be robustly tested in the community, for instance, by way of release on temporary licence (ROTL) while in open prison conditions.[41]It is important to note that the availability of offence-focused risk reduction interventions in prison and the opportunity to undertake ROTLs whilst in open conditions are matters for the Respondent/prison authorities and not for Parole Board panels.[42]The Applicant submits that in declining to direct his release in the face of professional recommendations, the Panel has arrived at a decision which is unbalanced, not evidence-based and has involved it attributing disproportionate weight to some aspects of the evidence and not enough weight to others.[43]In my judgement, the Panel has given careful and detailed consideration to the written and oral evidence before it and, as it is entitled to do, has carried out its own independent assessment of risk, attributing weight appropriately and noting, in particular, the absence of any formal risk reduction work and the paucity of protective factors. Further, it has found that, given the current lack of adequate internal controls, the risk management plan fails to provide sufficient external controls to allow the Panel to be satisfied that the Applicant's risk factors, which it sets out in detail, can at present be safely managed in the community.[44]I am satisfied that the Panel has considered the professional evidence and assessments and has set out sufficient and cogent reasons for any disagreement .[45]I find that the Panel has set out its findings following an exercise of its judgement and has properly explained its reasons for concluding that, a pplying the appropriate test, it is necessary for the protection of the public that the Applicant remain confined.[46]I am, accordingly, satisfied that, applying the appropriate tests, the Panel's decision was not irrational and there is no basis upon which it falls to be reconsidered. Decision[47]For the reasons I have given, the application for reconsideration is refused. Peter H. F. Jones 24 June 2026