Bannister, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 153 (07 July 2026) [2026] PBRA 153

PBRA

Bannister, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 153 (07 July 2026)

[2026] PBRA 153 · 2026-05-29

[1]This is an application by Bannister (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of an oral hearing panel dated 29 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

[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 is dated as noted below.

[5]The grounds for seeking a reconsideration are set out below. Background

[6]The Applicant is serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection. The sentence was imposed on 11 July 2007. The Applicant's tariff expired on 17 March 2009. The Applicant has been released and recalled on four occasions. The index offence was causing grievous bodily harm with intent (s.18). The Applicant and another attacked a female outside a club causing serious injury. The Applicant was aged 19 at the time of sentence. She was aged 38 at the time of the oral hearing. Current parole review

[7]The referral by the Respondent requested the Parole Board consider whether the Applicant should be subject to a direction for release. If not whether the Applicant should be subject to a recommendation that she be transferred to an open prison. The panel hearing took place on 22 May 2026 the panel consisted of an independent chair of the Parole Board accompanied by a further independent member of the Parole Board and a psychologist member of the Parole Board. Evidence was adduced from the Prison Offender Manager, a Senior Probation Officer who was giving evidence on behalf of the allocated Community Offender Manager and the Applicant who was legally represented and gave evidence herself. A dossier was considered. The Relevant Law

[8]The panel correctly sets out in its decision the test for release and the issues to be addressed in making a recommendation to the Respondent for a progressive move to open conditions. Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)

[9]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)).

[10]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)).

[11]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

[12]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.

[13]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. "

[14]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).

[15]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.

[16]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.

[17]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

[18]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.

[19]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.

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

[21]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.

[22]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 Transfer to Open Conditions

[23]The test to be applied when considering the question of transfer to open conditions is the subject of a well-established line of authorities going back to R (Hill) v Parole Board

[2011] EWHC 809 (Admin)

and including R (Rowe) v Parole Board

[2013] EWHC 3838 (Admin)

, R (Hutt) v Parole Board

[2018] EWHC 1041 (Admin)

. The test for transfer to open conditions is different from the test for release on licence and the two decisions must be approached separately and the correct test applied in each case. The panel must identify the factors which have led it to make its decision. The four factors the panel must take into account when applying the test are:(a) the progress of the prisoner in addressing and reducing their risk;

(b) the likeliness of the prisoner to comply with conditions of temporary release

(d) the benefit the prisoner is likely to derive from open conditions.

[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 Secretary of State

[26]The Respondent offered no representations. Note

[27]It is noted that the Applicant drafted a personal application for reconsideration dated 12 May 2026 (likely to have been misdated as the hearing took place on the 22 May 2026) which was followed by a similar application drafted by the Applicant's legal adviser dated 16 June 2026. Both applications cover similar grounds. Both applications have been taken into account in considering the application for reconsideration. Grounds and Discussion Ground 1

[28]It is submitted that the oral hearing panel failed to take sufficient account of the written and oral evidence when assessing risk and reaching its conclusions. In particular the fact that although there were verbal disagreements while the Applicant was in the community the incidents did not lead to physical violence or further offending. Discussion

[29]This submission is argued on the basis that although there were verbal disagreements on a number of occasions in the community which led to the involvement of the probation service and others, it is submitted that no physical violence was used by the Applicant or further offending which might lead to arrests. It is therefore submitted that the incidents relied upon did not demonstrate an escalation of the risk of serious harm but reflected " situational difficulties " relating to the accommodation arrangements for the Applicant in the community and her family member's medical condition as the Applicant was living with the family member.

[30]As indicated in the panel's decision the Applicant has a long history of difficulties arising in the community as a result of emotional dysregulation and aggressive behaviour.

[31]The Applicant's index offence was one of causing grievous bodily harm with intent. The Applicant, with another, attacked a female victim outside a nightclub. The attack was described by the judge as " frenzied and violent and prolonged ". The victim suffered facial injuries and a fractured cheek. The Applicant was under the influence of alcohol and was subject to a suspended sentence which had been imposed for an assault upon a police officer.

[32]Since the original sentence was imposed the Applicant has been released and recalled on four occasions. Although the Applicant had engaged in programmes and treatments to better understand her offending behaviour, the recall's occurred in circumstances where there had been further offences committed or breaches of licence conditions. The convictions occurring during the Applicants sentence were a conditional discharge for threatening behaviour in 2015. A 42 month sentence in 2017 for an offence of burglary, and an 18 month determinate sentence in 2022. The offence on this occasion involved arranging for a young boy to become involved in county lines drug dealing. In 2024 the Applicant was sentenced to a conditional discharge for assaulting a prison officer. The view of the panel was that this history of offending indicated evidence of the Applicants risk factors being live, both in the community, and in custody.

[33]The panel listed a number of risk factors which they identified during the course of the hearing, these included; an antisocial and pro-offending attitude and association with like-minded peers; a willingness to use or threaten violence against people and property; poor emotional and anger management; maladaptive coping strategies; drug and alcohol use; problematic personality traits; impulsivity; mental health issues; difficulties with relationships; not having stable accommodation; poor problem-solving skills and poor consequential thinking skills. The panel identified risk as being elevated in circumstances where the Applicant was not managing her emotions effectively.

[34]This was a complex case. The Applicant's mental health, personality and behavioural challenges were wide ranging and had persisted for many years.

[35]A panel of the Parole Board in 2025 identified that the Applicants custodial behaviour had been poor and on many occasions demonstrated the risk factors which were active at the time of committing the index offence. Those factors include aggression, poor emotional control, impulsivity and violence. There had, however, been a view that the Applicant's negative behaviour was associated with the prison environment and that the behaviour and the risks may be lessened if the Applicant were in the community with robust external controls. Accordingly, the panel (citing this rationale) directed release.

[36]However, within 48 hours of release the Applicant was experiencing difficulties in her relationship with two close family members. She and a family member became involved in an argument which led to the family member calling the police. The Applicant during this argument also spoke (on the telephone) to a probation officer who noted that the Applicant was arguing aggressively with both family members and shouting abuse at one of those family members. The matter eventually calmed down. The Applicant later told a probation officer that this was what she considered " normal behaviour ".

[37]The altercations between the Applicant and the family member continued. The family member contacted the probation service and indicated that she was no longer able to stay at the family member's home due to her behaviour.

[38]The probation service made some attempt to persuade the Applicant to move to approved premises. The Applicant however was not prepared to comply with all requirements of an approved premises placement. The Applicant became aggressive and threatening to a point where the probation officer, who was speaking to the Applicant on the telephone, called the police.

[39]At this point the probation service came to the conclusion that the risk management plan had broken down and that there were risks associated with the Applicant's family member and others who might be considered to be confronting or challenging the Applicant. At this point the Applicant's licence was revoked.

[40]During the course of the oral hearing the Applicant told the panel that the family member was making up much of what she told the probation service due to her medical condition. As far as her verbal exchanges were concerned she told the panel that this was the way that " everyone in [town]" speaks. The Applicant took the view that the probation service had also exaggerated what had happened.

[41]The panel considered the entirety of the evidence in relation to the behavioural issues during the last period that the Applicant was in the community. The panel concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that the Applicant had acted in the way alleged. The panel considered that the Applicant lacked insight into her presentation when in situations of conflict and was not able to understand the impact on others. The panel's concerns were that situations of conflict and emotional dysregulation had led to violence in the past and could do so in the future. The panel also noted the fact that the Applicant's release into the community did not appear to have assisted her in managing her behaviour despite the risk management plan and the other community support.

[42]The panel were told that since the Applicant returned to prison there was an outstanding allegation of threatening behaviour regarding a prison officer when the Applicant was visiting hospital. That matter had not been concluded and was not taken into account by the panel. There were also a number of security entries and warnings regarding rudeness argumentative behaviour and threatening behaviour towards staff and other prisoners. The panel noted that this mirrored the behaviour presented by the Applicant during her last period in custody.

[43]In addition, the panel noted that there was concern about drug debts and potential substance misuse. The Applicant had been seen on one occasion slumped on the floor and was believed to be under the influence of a drug. The panel noted that there had been no direct evidence of substance misuse.

[44]The views of the professionals was that the Applicant's risk could not be managed in the community as presented at the time of the oral hearing. The view was that further work would be necessary to improve emotional regulation. The Applicant herself told the panel that she accepted that she had difficulty with anger, but said that when she was being aggressive she was merely displaying her frustration and passion. She did not consider that her emotional difficulties would lead to violence.

[45]The panel in a holistic assessment of the evidence accepted the views of the professionals in this case. The panel took the view that the risk management plan would not be capable of managing the risk presented by the Applicant. Additionally, there were serious difficulties in providing accommodation. The only viable option at the time of the panel hearing would be a form of emergency accommodation, the panel felt that this would be inadequate to manage the Applicant's difficulties and risk.

[46]In summary the panel concluded that the Applicant displayed very little evidence of internal controls given her continuing non-compliance in custody. In the light of the absence of internal controls, the panel concluded that external controls alone would be insufficient to manage the risk.

[47]The Applicant and the Applicant's legal adviser argue that insufficient weight was placed upon the fact that despite the Applicants aggressive and hostile behaviour there had been no acts of physical violence by the Applicant. I am not persuaded by this argument. The level of anger and aggression exhibited by the Applicant clearly demonstrated a potential risk of impulsive violence and of psychological harm to those who were being addressed. Although it is acknowledged that the Applicant has deep-seated issues relating to personality and possibly mental health, the panel were obliged to apply the public protection test in terms of public safety. The panel were entitled to consider the Applicants history of behaviour in the past and to observe the more recent behaviour and its potential consequences. For these reasons I am not persuaded that the panel's conclusions could amount to irrationality in the sense set out above. Ground 2

[48]The Applicant's legal adviser submits that the panel inappropriately suggested that further work would be likely to be required in relation to emotional regulation in order to demonstrate that the risk posed by the Applicant could be safely managed in the community. The submission on behalf of the Applicant is that firstly behavioural work of this sort had already been undertaken and; secondly that, because it is argued that the custodial environment itself exacerbates the behavioural difficulties, the panel suggestion that further work be undertaken in custody was irrational. Discussion

[49]So far as the argument that the Applicant had completed relevant behavioural work in the community in the past, the obvious concern of the panel was that any such work appeared to have little impact whether it had been completed in custody or in the community given the immediate difficulties faced by the Applicant when she was in the community in terms of her exchanges with her family. So far as the issue relating to the prison environment is concerned the issue for the panel was public safety. The panel were not in a position to direct further behavioural work or to provide suggested venues to undertake such behavioural work. As is often the case panels will refer to the possible interventions which might lead to a differing outcome in the future, however the responsibility for demonstrating evidence of a reduction in risk lies in the hands of the Applicant and those responsible for the Applicants sentence plan. I am not persuaded that the panel were irrational in relation to this ground for the reasons set out above. Ground 3

[50]The Applicant's legal adviser submits that the Applicant complains that she was at times prevented from commenting fully upon the evidence and was restricted when making additional comments at the conclusion of the hearing. She was also directed not to communicate verbally with her legal representative during the evidence of witnesses. The Applicant's legal adviser therefore submits that the Applicant was not afforded sufficient opportunity to present her case or to respond to the concerns raised. Discussion

[51]It is clear from the panel decision that a substantial amount of evidence was received from the Applicant as is recorded in the decision itself. The decision appears to address the issues which were relevant to the risk assessment by the panel. Panels of the Parole Board are required to appropriately and fairly manage the conduct of the parole hearing. Time can be limited and parole panels are obliged to ensure that time is used to secure the evidence required by them to make a fair and reasonable risk assessment. It is also entirely reasonable to expect that a prisoner will listen to evidence that is being adduced rather than discuss matters with a legal adviser during the course of that evidence being given. The prisoner is a primary and important party in the proceedings and needs to ensure that evidence which is adduced is being understood and heard. It is also important for other parties (including the prisoner's legal adviser) to listen to and understand the evidence being given by witnesses. I am not therefore persuaded that a request by the panel chair not to consult during the course of evidence being adduced could be considered to be either procedurally unfair or unreasonable.

[52]So far as time is concerned, the Applicant was legally represented throughout these proceedings. Complaints such as the need for further time to adduce evidence or to make representations is a matter which is the responsibility of the Applicant's legal adviser and a matter which must be raised at the time of the oral hearing. It was open to the Applicant or her legal adviser at any time to apply for adjournment to enable more time to be set aside for any further evidence to be adduced. No such application appears to have been made.

[53]It is also of note that, following the conclusion of the oral hearing, written legal representations were submitted on behalf of the Applicant. The representations contain numerous references to the evidence adduced by the Applicant. There is no complaint, however, within those representations about limitations relating to the adducing of evidence by the Applicant or any application to reconvene to allow further evidence to be adduced. I am not persuaded that this ground amounts to procedural unfairness in the sense set out above. Decision

[54]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 07 July 2026