Gregoire, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 146 (24 June 2026) [2026] PBRA 146
PBRA
Gregoire, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 146 (24 June 2026)
[2026] PBRA 146 · 2026-05-21
[1]This is an application by Gregoire (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision dated 21 May 2026 not to direct his release. The decision was made by a panel following an oral hearing.[2]Rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended) (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.[3]I have considered the application on the papers. These are the decision, the dossier (now consisting of 469 numbered pages), and the application for reconsideration. Background[4]On 19 March 2009, the Applicant was sentenced following conviction for murder. He received a mandatory life sentence with a minimum term of 14 years. His tariff expired on 7 August 2022.[5]The Applicant was 46 years old at the time of sentencing and is now 63 years old. Request for Reconsideration[6]The application for reconsideration has been submitted by the Applicant. It argues that the decision was procedurally unfair.[7]The submissions are supplemented by written arguments to which reference will be made in the Discussion section below. Current Parole Review[8]The Applicant's case was referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State (the Respondent) on 21 May 2025 to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to direct his release. This is the Applicant's fourth parole review.[9]His review proceeded to an oral hearing on 21 May 2026 before a three-member panel including a psychologist specialist member. Oral evidence was taken from the Applicant, the Prison Offender Manager (POM), the Community Offender Manager (COM), and a forensic psychologist commissioned by HMPPS. The Applicant was legally represented throughout.[10]The panel accepted that the Applicant's risk was not one of general violence, but of serious harm in the context of intimate relationships, particularly through intimate partner violence, controlling or coercive behaviour, jealousy, resentment, suspicion and rejection. It found that this risk had not been reduced to the level required for release. Although the Applicant had completed offending behaviour work and had a generally positive custodial record, the panel considered that his learning difficulties had limited the value of that work, that he had not internalised the relevant learning, and that he continued to maintain innocence or minimise responsibility in a way which left core risk factors unresolved.[11]The panel relied on the professional evidence that further adapted risk reduction work remained necessary in closed conditions. It concluded that the Applicant had not shown that his long-term risk of serious harm was no more than minimal and that release planning remained insufficiently developed and too dependent on external controls. As to open conditions, the panel accepted that the Applicant presented a low risk of absconding but found that he had not made sufficient progress in addressing and reducing risk. Open conditions might test his ability to manage within a less restrictive regime but would not address or meaningfully test the core relationship-based risk. The panel therefore neither directed release nor recommended transfer to open conditions. The Relevant Law[12]The Parole Board will direct release if it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined. Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)[13]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)).[14]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)).[15]A decision to recommend or not to recommend a move to open conditions is not eligible for reconsideration under rule 28. This was confirmed in Barclay [2019] PBRA 6 . Procedural unfairness[16]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.[17]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.[18]The overriding objective is to ensure that the applicant's case was dealt with justly. The reply on behalf of the Respondent[19]The Respondent has submitted no representations in response to this application. Discussion[20]I note that the Applicant was seeking a recommendation for a move to open conditions at the oral hearing. It is only the decision not to direct his release that is open to potential reconsideration. That does not, however, preclude me from examining the decision as a whole in the light of the submissions made by the Applicant.[21]The application is difficult to decipher in places, but I have read it carefully and have considered its substance. The Applicant's principal complaint is that the decision was unfair because insufficient weight was given to his custodial behaviour, his completion of offending behaviour work, and his compliance with the prison regime. He also appears to challenge the professional evidence relied upon by the panel and to question why further psychological assessment or intervention remains necessary when he completed courses some years ago and is now beyond tariff.[22]Those submissions do not disclose procedural unfairness. The Applicant was legally represented, attended the oral hearing, gave oral evidence, and had the opportunity to challenge the professional evidence and advance his case for progression. The panel expressly considered his completed offending behaviour work, his generally positive custodial record, his learning difficulties, the delay and uncertainty in his sentence progression, and the professional evidence about outstanding risk reduction work. The fact that the panel gave greater weight to the professional evidence than to the Applicant's own view of his progress does not make the process unfair. Nor was the panel required to accept that course completion and good custodial behaviour were sufficient to demonstrate that the statutory test for release was met. The application amounts, in substance, to disagreement with the panel's assessment of risk and progression. It does not identify any procedural flaw, still less one capable of rendering the decision fundamentally unfair. Decision[23]The application for reconsideration is refused. Stefan Fafinski 24 June 2026