Russell, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 151 (02 July 2026) [2026] PBRA 151

PBRA

Russell, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 151 (02 July 2026)

[2026] PBRA 151 · 2026-05-26

[1]This is an application by Russell (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision dated 26 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

[3]I have considered the application on the papers. These are the decision, the dossier (now consisting of 320 numbered pages), and the application for reconsideration. Background

[4]On 21 August 2020, the Applicant was sentenced following conviction on five counts of sexual activity with a child under 16. He received an extended sentence consisting of imprisonment for eight years and six months followed by four years on extended licence.

[5]The Applicant was 34 years old at the time of sentencing and is now 40 years old. Request for Reconsideration

[6]The application for reconsideration has been submitted by solicitors on behalf of 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 11 December 2024 to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to direct his release. This is the Applicant's first parole review.

[9]His review proceeded to an oral hearing on 11 May 2026 before a two-member panel. Oral evidence was taken from the Applicant, two Prison Offender Managers and the Community Offender Manager. The Applicant was legally represented throughout.

[10]The panel recognised that there was significant evidence in the Applicant's favour. That included his good custodial behaviour, his trusted work in open conditions, his temporary releases, his future employment plans, the proposed risk management plan and the professional evidence supporting release. However, the panel was not satisfied that those matters sufficiently addressed the risk-related concerns it identified. In particular, it considered that there remained unresolved issues concerning the Applicant's insight into his offending, his ability to recognise and disclose risk escalation, the extent to which completed work had addressed the relevant risk factors, and whether further offence-focused and relationship-related work could safely be left to be completed in the community.

[11]Although the professional evidence supported release, the panel was ultimately not satisfied that the Applicant presented no more than a minimal risk of further offending causing serious harm. It therefore concluded that the statutory public protection test was not met and made no direction for release. 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 has been confirmed by the decision on the previous reconsideration application 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;

(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]The application is pleaded as one of procedural unfairness. It is submitted that all professional witnesses supported release, that the Applicant had behaved well in open conditions, that he had undertaken overnight release successfully, that he was trusted to work as a prison driver, that he engaged well with professionals, and that he gave a clear account of his move-on plans. It is submitted, in substance, that the panel wrongly based its decision on its view that his oral evidence lacked depth and insight, when the proper issue was whether his risk could be safely managed in the community.

[21]I do not accept that the panel failed to consider the favourable evidence. The decision expressly records the professional evidence supporting release, the Applicant's positive custodial conduct, his trusted work, his temporary releases, his future plans and the proposed risk management plan. The panel was not required to accept the professional recommendations if, having considered the evidence as a whole, it gave rational reasons for reaching a different conclusion.

[22]The panel's reasoning was not confined to the Applicant's presentation when giving evidence. It considered the substance of his evidence alongside the written reports and the oral evidence of the professional witnesses. It identified concerns about the depth of the Applicant's understanding of his risk, the extent to which completed work had addressed the relevant risk factors, and the degree to which the proposed risk management plan would depend on the Applicant's own openness, disclosure and self-management. Those were matters directly relevant to the statutory public protection test.

[23]The panel also explained why it was not satisfied that further work could safely be left to be completed after release. It accepted that the proposed plan contained significant external controls but considered that those controls did not sufficiently answer the unresolved issues concerning insight, disclosure and self-management. That was an evaluative judgement for the panel. It may be that another panel could have placed greater weight on the professional recommendations and the Applicant's successful testing in open conditions, but that is not the applicable threshold for reconsideration.

[24]The application also refers to the decision having been issued one day outside the expected period. No prejudice is identified. That point does not render the decision procedurally unfair.

[25]Although the application is not pleaded as irrationality, I have considered whether the substance of the complaint raises any arguable irrationality in the panel's decision. It does not. The panel gave clear reasons for departing from the professional recommendations. Those reasons were linked to the evidence, to the identified risk factors and to the statutory test. The decision was cautious, but it was not outside the range of decisions reasonably open to the panel.

[26]Read fairly and as a whole, the decision shows that the panel considered the favourable evidence and the professional recommendations but was not satisfied that the Applicant's risk had been reduced to the level required by the statutory test. The application therefore does not establish procedural unfairness, irrationality, or any error of law. Decision

[27]The application for reconsideration is refused. Stefan Fafinski 02 July 2026