Holt, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 17 (20 January 2026) [2026] PBRA 17

PBRA

Holt, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 17 (20 January 2026)

[2026] PBRA 17 · 2025-12-03

[1]This is an application by Holt (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision made under Rule 21(7)(b) of the Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended by the Parole Board (Amendment) Rule 2025) ("The Parole Board Rules") dated 3 December 2025. That decision was made on the papers and did not direct the Applicant's release.

[2]Rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended) 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 were a dossier which comprised 242 pages which contained, among other documents, the decision reasons, and the Applicant's application for reconsideration. Background

[4]The Applicant is serving an extended determinate sentence comprising a seven-year custodial term and a three-year extended period on licence for an offence of rape, contrary to section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act. Aged 18, and while serving in the armed forces, the Applicant raped a female soldier. He committed the offence while he was on bail for two further offences of sexual assault against other female soldiers and an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (AOABH) and criminal damage relating to another female. He received short determinate sentences of youth detention for these latter offences to run concurrently to the index sentence and they have now expired. He was also placed on the Sex Offenders' Register for an indefinite period.

[5]The Applicant pleaded guilty on a basis of plea to the AOABH and criminal damage offences. He pleaded not guilty to the offences of sexual assault and rape but was found guilty after trial at Court Martial.

[6]This was the Applicant's first review by the Parole Board. His Parole Eligibility Date was 21 July 2025. His Conditional Release Date is November 2027. His sentence and licence will expire in January 2031. Request for Reconsideration

[7]The application for reconsideration is dated 22 December 2025 and was submitted by solicitors on the Applicant's behalf.

[8]The grounds for seeking a reconsideration are that the decision was made on outdated information and as a result it was irrational and procedurally unfair.

[9]These grounds are supplemented by written arguments to which reference will be made in the Discussion section below. Current parole review

[10]The Applicant's case was referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State for Justice (the Respondent) in October 2024. The referral required the Parole Board to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to direct the Applicant's release.

[11]On 7 March 2025 a single member panel of the Parole Board directed the Applicant's review to an oral hearing. A report prepared by the Community Offender Manager for that review provided actuarial assessments that the Applicant posed a high probability of serious recidivism and that his risk of direct contact sexual offending was assessed as very high. The oral hearing was duly listed for 17 February 2026, to be heard by a three-member panel. Various updated reports were directed for submission, including a Psychological Risk Assessment (PRA).

[12]The PRA was submitted in mid-May 2025, along with information about the Applicant's entitlement to additional support in the community to which he is entitled as a care leaver until he is 25 years old. The PRA concluded that the Applicant posed a moderate risk of sexual and intimate partner violence and a high risk of serious harm. It concluded that the Applicant had outstanding treatment needs to address his risk of sexual offending. It noted that by that point, the Applicant had engaged in around six months of therapy but that he had core risk reduction work to complete. The PRA recommended that the Applicant undertake the group-based Building Choices medium intensity programme, tailored with one-to-one sessions to incorporate work on his risk of sexual harm. The assessing psychologist did not support the Applicant's release while this work was outstanding.

[13]On 10 November 2025, the allocated panel chair for the oral hearing reviewed the Applicant's case in anticipation of the oral hearing. Noting the findings of the PRA the panel chair considered that the Applicant's review could be concluded on the papers. While it was not made explicitly clear in the directions which followed, it can be understood that the intention was to conclude the review with a decision which did not direct his release. Legal representatives were invited to make submissions about the proposal by 28 November 2025.

[14]No representations were submitted. On 3 December 2025 the panel chair concluded the Applicant's review with a no release decision, citing the need for the Applicant to undertake the work recommended in the PRA. The Relevant Law

[15]The Parole Board will direct release if it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should remain confined. The test is automatically set out within the Parole Board's template for decisions. Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)

[16]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)).

[17]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)). Irrationality

[18]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.

[19]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. "

[20]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).

[21]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.

[22]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 or, as in this case, reviewed the evidence on the papers alone.

[23]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;

(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. The reply on behalf of the Secretary of State

[27]The Respondent confirmed they offered no representations in response to this application. Discussion

[28]Submissions on behalf of the Applicant argue that the decision to conclude his review on the papers under Rule 21 was based on outdated information, specifically that the Applicant had undertaken the core risk reduction work which the PRA had recommended and which the panel chair had said was necessary before he could be released. On this basis, submissions argue that the decision was irrational because had the information been available to the panel chair they 'would almost certainly have reached a different conclusion' .

[29]Submissions also argue that insufficient time was given to allow representations to be made on the proposal to conclude the Applicant's review on the papers. It is argued that had a longer period of time been given to do so, solicitors would have been able to take instructions from the Applicant and the information about the completion of the programme could have been provided. Solicitors state that they had ' extreme difficulty in obtaining instructions from [the Applicant] because of the very limited availability of video links at [the prison].' On this basis, it is submitted the legal representative was not afforded a genuine opportunity to take their client's instructions. Consequently, the submissions argue, the decision not to release the Applicant was procedurally unfair.

[30]I will address the matter of procedural unfairness first as it is determinative in this case. Rule 21 allows for a panel chair to direct that a case previously directed to oral hearing should be decided on the papers if an oral hearing is no longer necessary. The Rule requires the Parole Board to notify parties when this is being considered and provides for a statutory 14-day response period for any representations about the proposal. Following that 14-day period the panel chair will either decide the case on the papers or that it should continue to be determined by a panel at an oral hearing.

[31]The legal representative in submissions states:

"Although the panel chair's directions were dated 10 November, they were not communicated to the parties until 13 th November. Legal representatives were subsequently invited to submit by 28 th November, effectively only providing two weeks for preparation and submission."

[32]It's not clear why there was a three working day delay in the legal representative receiving the directions, but it does not matter - even taking into account the stated delay, the legal representative had 15 days from receipt to respond but did not do so. The decision was not made until 3 December 2025, three working days after the deadline. The legal representative has not provided evidence of their difficulty in obtaining a video link, but this is a common occurrence, and I accept this may well have been the case. However, there was ample opportunity either during the initial 14-day period or before the decision was made to make representations seeking an extension to allow for instructions to be received. It would be unusual for an extension not to be granted in circumstances where a legal representative was having difficulty contacting their client.

[33]In summary, the panel chair applied Rule 21 correctly insofar as they allowed sufficient time for a response (or a request for an extension) from the legal representative. I am satisfied there was no procedural unfairness.

[34]The legal representative submits that as a direct result of the alleged procedural unfairness the subsequent decision was irrational as it did not take into account information which otherwise would have been provided by the legal representative. As I have already indicated there was no procedural unfairness and so this ground cannot be successfully engaged as the irrationality is dependent on a finding of procedural unfairness. Decision

[35]For the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the decision was procedurally unfair or irrational and accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused. Sally Allbeury 20 January 2026