Sharif, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 143 (22 June 2026) [2026] PBRA 143

PBRA
Sharif, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 143 (22 June 2026)
[2026] PBRA 143 · 2026-05-12
[1]This is an application by Sharif (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of an oral hearing panel dated 12 May 2026. The decision of the panel was 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(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 the dossier, the application for reconsideration drafted by the Applicant's legal adviser, the decision of the oral hearing panel and the representations by the Secretary of State (The Respondent). Request for Reconsideration[4]The application for reconsideration was received on 2 June 2026.[5]The grounds for seeking a reconsideration are set out below: Background[6]The Applicant is serving an extended determinate sentence of ten years imprisonment consisting of a custodial term of five years and extension of five years. The index offences were possession of a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence, possession of a shortened shotgun without a certificate and possession of a knife in a public place. The Applicant was sentenced on 15 May 2023 and was aged 34 at the time of sentence. The Applicant was stopped by the police in May 2022 in a car. The car was reported stolen. The Applicant was a passenger in the vehicle. He was searched and found to be in possession of a knife with a four-inch folding blade. He was arrested and bailed. In June 2022 police officers went to a housing project following the report of a disturbance. The officers entered the Applicant's bedroom discovered a firearm under his bed. The weapon was considered viable and loaded with two cartridges. The Applicant was heavily intoxicated. It transpired that he had brandished the shotgun at a fellow resident after an altercation with him. The Applicant had told the police that he had found the firearm in a rucksack in a park. He later said that he had considered selling the item. The Applicant had a background of offending. He had committed robberies when he was 16 years of age and had various offences involving assault and battery and possession of a knife. Current Parole Review[7]The referral from the Secretary of State requested the Parole Board consider whether the Applicant should be made subject to a direction for release.[8]The panel hearing took place on 30 April 2026. The panel consisted of a judicial chair of the Parole Board accompanied by a further judicial member of the Parole Board and a psychology member of the Parole Board. The panel considered evidence from a Prison Offender Manager (POM), a prison instructed psychologist and the Community Offender Manager (COM). The panel considered a dossier. The Applicant gave evidence and was legally represented. The Relevant Law[9]The panel correctly sets out in its decision letter the test for release. Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)[10]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)).[11]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)).[12]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[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) 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 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;(c) they were not properly informed of the case against them;(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[22]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.[23]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[24]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. "
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]The Respondent offered no representations. Discussion Ground 1[27]The Applicant's legal adviser submits that, in reaching its conclusion about releasing the Applicant, the panel failed to take sufficient account of the views of the POM and of the prison instructed psychologist both of whom were recommending that the Applicant be released. Discussion[28]As is correctly acknowledged by the Applicant's legal adviser, panels of the Parole Board are not bound by the recommendations and views of professional witnesses. It is their responsibility to make their own risk assessments and to evaluate the likely effectiveness of any risk management plan proposed. They must make up their own minds on the totality of the evidence that they hear, including evidence from the Applicant. They would be failing in their duty to protect the public from serious harm (while also protecting the prisoner from unnecessary incarceration) if they failed to do just that. As was observed by the divisional Court in DSD they have the expertise to do it. However, where a panel makes a decision contrary to the opinions and recommendations of professional witnesses, it is important that it should explain clearly its reasons for doing so and that it stated reasons should be sufficient to justify its conclusions as per Wells above.[29]In this case the panel clearly set out the reasons why they rejected the views of the two professionals who were supporting release in this case. So far as the POM was concerned, the panel noted that although there had been a series of security entries and searches of the Applicant's cell the POM had rejected all the adverse information because the cell searches had revealed nothing and the Applicant had not failed a drug test. However, the panel clearly set out its reasons for scepticism so far as the POM' evidence was concerned. The panel took the view that the POM demonstrated limited professional curiosity and appeared to accept the Applicant's account at face value. In particular the POM had not considered the possibility of the Applicant being involved in drug supply and arranging for other prisoners to hold items on his behalf. In the light of the Applicant's criminal history prior to his prison sentence the panel took the view that the POM's confidence in the Applicant's denial of involvement in the drug culture was concerning. The panel particularly took account of the fact that if involvement in the drug culture had continued in the community the risks to the public would be high, particularly as the Applicant was a person who had a propensity for general violence and a conviction for being in possession of a loaded firearm.[30]So far as the prison instructed psychologist was concerned, the panel noted that the psychologist had found it difficult to make an assessment of the security information relating to being involved in the drug culture. The psychologist appeared to take the view that the absence of hard evidence of drug dealing or drug taking, supported the indications by the Applicant that he was not involved in the prison drug subculture.[31]The panel were also concerned that the prison instructed psychologist had not fully addressed the issue of intimate partner violence. The psychologist had not been aware of a conviction for intimate partner violence although she knew of an incident which did not lead to conviction. The panel took the view that concerns about intimate partner violence had not been fully addressed.[32]The COM in this case did not support a view that the Applicant should be directed for release. The COM supported a move to an open prison. The panel had no power to direct or recommend a move to an open prison. The panel noted that the COM did not support release and took the view that there should be a longer period of stability. The COM was also concerned about contradictory accounts that the Applicant had offered in connection with how he came in possession of the firearm which was the subject of the index offence. The COM also indicated a current concern about partner violence. Probation records indicated that there were three incidents relating to reports of partner violence including one which related to a conviction.[33]As noted above the panel's role was to take account of the professional evidence and to give it such weight as it thought appropriate, however the panel were obliged to take a holistic view of the evidence as a whole and in particular take account of the Applicant's evidence. This was a case where the panel clearly set out the reasons why they rejected the views of the professionals. The Applicant may well have been disappointed that those views were not accommodated, however there were cogent explanations by the panel as to why they felt the professionals had failed to take account of substantive security intelligence which coupled with the Applicants criminal history was a clear evidential basis for indicating a concern about the Applicant's risk of serious harm in the community.[34]I am not therefore persuaded that this was a case where the panel failed in its duty to adhere to the requirements of Wells. For that reason, I am not persuaded that, on this ground, the panel's decision was irrational and therefore a basis for Reconsideration. Ground 2[35]it is argued that the panel failed to include advice about potential next steps for the Applicant as is recommended by Parole Board guidance. Discussion[36]Whilst the panel did not explicitly set out a suggested progression path in the decision, this was a case where the COM in particular had provided a very full report which indicated the sentence plan. The COM's views were obviously available to the prison in terms of progression planning. The suggested progression pathway provided by the COM was that the Applicant move to an open prison and consolidate the interventions that he had undertaken whilst in the closed prison. He would also have the opportunity to be tested in a community setting using approved premises for visits and overnight leave. As the panel noted the issue of a move to open conditions was not within the gift of the panel. I am not persuaded that the Applicant suffered a procedural irregularity by the absence of suggestions from the panel as to his future progression. I do not therefore direct reconsideration on this ground. Ground 3[37]It is submitted by the Applicants legal adviser that "there were a number of occasions throughout the hearing when either [the Applicant] was being questioned by his legal representative or was giving evidence and was rushed by the panel chair." It is further suggested that " The panel chair interrupted the questioning, and the evidence on several occasions to offer his opinion that the subject matter was irrelevant or being urged to move on." Discussion[38]I have listened to the recording of the entirety of the evidence given by the Applicant. The Applicant was questioned by one of the panel members who was a judicial member of the Parole Board. It is quite clear that the Applicant was questioned in simple language and clearly understood the nature of each question. He was given time after each question to reply and there was a pause before the next question was delivered. I could detect no evidence that the questioning of the Applicant was in any way rushed or interrupted. There was no interruption during the entirety of the delivery of the evidence by the Applicant. The Applicant gave evidence in response to the panel member who was primarily charged with asking questions for one hour and 16 minutes. There had been a scheduled break, followed by much shorter periods of questioning from the second panel member and the panel chair. The Applicant's legal adviser was invited to ask questions and did so. The Applicant's legal adviser questioned the Applicant for approximately seven minutes. In response to one question the Applicant was repeating evidence that he had given earlier. The panel chair did on this single occasion ask the Applicants legal adviser to move to the next topic.[39]The role of the panel chair is to oversee the progress of a panel hearing. It is entirely appropriate for a panel chair to indicate that matters which are being repeated do not require repetition and to ask for the matters to be moved on. It is important in terms of managing time during a panel hearing day that the panel chair respectfully controls the process of the hearing.[40]In this case, having heard the entirety of the evidence given by the Applicant I am satisfied that the Applicant was able to deliver all the evidence that he wished and was in no way rushed in the course of giving his evidence. In addition to delivering is evidence during the course of the process of the hearing, the Applicant was also given an opportunity, as is the norm in Parole Board cases, to make any further comments or representations at the conclusion of the hearing.[41]It is also a matter of note that one of the roles of a legal adviser is to alert the panel to any issue, such as a feeling of being rushed or being treated unfairly, during the course of the hearing, by way of the usual application and representations. In this case I note that no such representations were made by the Applicant's legal adviser. Cases in which a party to a Parole Board hearing is represented by a lawyer are highly unlikely to generate a successful grant of reconsideration if there has been no challenge or comment by the Applicant's legal adviser, regarding the alleged irregularity, during the course of the hearing , save in the rare event where the issues are outside the parameters of the hearing itself.[42]In any event I am not persuaded that there was an issue in this case which could have been raised during the hearing. In my determination the Applicant was appropriately granted a full and comprehensive opportunity to place his evidence and arguments before the panel. I am not therefore persuaded that this ground amounts to a basis for reconsideration. Decision[43]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. HH Stephen Dawson 22 June 2026