Husain, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 16 (14 January 2026) [2026] PBRA 16

PBRA
Husain, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 16 (14 January 2026)
[2026] PBRA 16 · 2025-12-10
[1]This is an application by Husain (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of an oral hearing dated 13 November 2025, declining 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 dossier, now amounting to 625 pages. This seemingly includes personal representations as to reconsideration from the Applicant. b) Reconsideration representations dated 10 December 2025 from solicitors on behalf of the Applicant. c) Notes from the Chair of the oral hearing Panel (explained below). Request for Reconsideration[4]The grounds for seeking a reconsideration are as follows: a) The Applicant's legal representatives make the application on the ground of procedural unfairness. They suggest that the Applicant misunderstood questions of the Panel, and the Panel did not specifically ask about his risk factors. b) The Applicant's personal representations suggest that the decision was both irrational and procedurally unfair for a range of reasons:(i) A significant amount of these are better characterised as complaints about the professionals involved in his case and not challenges to the reasoning of the decision. I was satisfied that they were not applicable to the scope of this application.(ii) The Applicant also raises points around the ages of the victim, his own age, and dates of offending, but makes no submission concerning how they render the decision irrational or procedurally unfair. I was satisfied they did not amount to legitimate grounds of challenge.(iii) In contradiction to the submissions of his legal representatives, the Applicant suggests that the decision wrongly describes him as improving his spoken and written English whilst in custody, claiming he has always spoken, read and written English. I also note that the Applicant has prepared these representations himself, suggesting a solid understanding of the English language. In any event, I was satisfied this does not amount to a ground of challenge.(iv) Finally, the Applicant raises a substantially similar point to the one raised by his legal representatives, namely he was not asked about aspects of his risk.(v) Having considered the Applicant's personal submissions, I have found no properly formed ground of challenge on the basis of irrationality, and the only ground of challenge with respect to procedural unfairness, essentially mirrors the submissions of his legal representative. As such, I will address this application on that basis. Background[5]The Applicant was convicted on 21 April 2016 of 17 counts of sexual offending, perpetrated against his three nieces over an 18-year period, between 1980 and 1998. He was aged between 35 and 53 when the offences took place, and 70 when he was convicted. The victims were aged between six and 12. He received a 14-year sentence for offenders of particular concern, comprising of 13 years imprisonment and an extended licence period of one year. Current parole review[6]The Secretary of State for Justice (the Respondent) referred the Applicant's case to the Parole Board on 5 February 2022. The case was subject to a number of deferrals and adjournments, before the substantive hearing took place on 4 June 2025. The Applicant was 80 years old at the time of the hearing.[7]A Panel of three members, including a psychologist Chair, a psychologist member and an independent member, heard evidence from the Applicant, the Prison Offender Manager (POM), the Community Offender Manager (COM), and a prison psychologist. A Gujarati interpreter was present, and the Applicant was legally represented throughout the proceedings. The Relevant Law[8]The panel correctly sets out in its decision the test for release. 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)).[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)). Procedural unfairness[11]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.[12]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.[13]The overriding objective is to ensure that the applicant's case was dealt with justly. The reply on behalf of the Secretary of State[14]The Respondent offers no representations. Discussion[15]Considering the scope of the Applicant's challenge, I make the following observations: a) The Applicant's potential issues with the English language were identified and he was supplied with a Gujarati interpreter. With respect to language difficulties no further practical steps could have been undertaken. No issues were raised by the Applicant's legal representative, either during the hearing, or subsequent to it. b) With respect to the suggestion that the Applicant misunderstood the Panel's questioning with respect to the index offence, he has not indicated how this was directly as a result of an aspect of the hearing which was unfair. In any event, having considered the dossier and the evidence of the professional witnesses, it was clear that there were concerns about the level of insight he had, and the risk factors in his case. His legal representative had the opportunity to ask him to clarify his answers or to speak more widely on these matters. c) The Applicant suggests that he was not directly asked about his risk factors. No recording of the hearing was available due to technical issues, however, the Panel Chair supplied a typed transcription of handwritten notes, which I have considered. Whilst the Applicant was not asked directly what his risk factors were, he was asked a variety of relevant questions: · Q:
" What is your understanding of why you offended?"
A:
"I don't know... I can't remember... I don't understand why... I can't help with reasons." · Q: "
How do you know it won't happen again if you don't understand your behaviour? " A:
"I am an old man and guided by God. Faith has strengthened since prison. God is my judge and Islam is my guide. I am now a more committed Muslim, more than before." · Q: "
Why do you think you offended despite being in a relationship" A:
"I don't know, I cannot give any explanation. Not interested in any sex now. Not sure if there is a future with my wife as no contact. Won't need to find a way to meet sexual needs in future as not interested in any sex." · Q : "
Future risk management, what could be risky for you?" A : "I am not a risk in any situation. I understand the rules of my licence, what is expected. My family will support me with this. I will do as probation asks." d) The submissions do not present any authority for the proposition that a hearing would be procedurally unfair on the basis of a failure to ask a specific question. Procedural fairness requires that matters in issue with respect to the ultimate determination are properly addressed in the hearing, and the prisoner is given an opportunity to comment on them. As previously noted, the Applicant's legal representative also had the opportunity to question the Applicant in order to fill in any gaps in his evidence. e) The evidence shows the questions asked by the Panel gave the Applicant a fair opportunity to address the concerns around his understanding of his own risks.[16]Having considered the totality of the material, I am satisfied the Applicant received a fair hearing. Those issues which were relevant to the Panel's considerations were clear, both from the dossier and from the questioning of professionals and the Applicant in the hearing. Decision[17]For the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the decision was procedurally unfair and accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused. John Marley 14 January 2026