Badawy, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 19 (21 January 2026) [2026] PBRA 19

PBRA

Badawy, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 19 (21 January 2026)

[2026] PBRA 19 · 2025-11-04

[1]This is an application by Badawy ('the Applicant') for reconsideration of a decision of a panel of the Parole Board (the Panel) following an oral hearing held on 4 November 2025 not to direct his release.

[2]The hearing on 4 November was adjourned by the Panel after a considerable body of evidence had been taken. The reason for the adjournment was that it had become clear that a complete Risk Management Plan (RMP) was not available for the Panel's consideration. The case was as a result concluded at further paper reviews on 28 November 2025 and on 2 December 2025 following consideration by the Panel of the RMP dated 26 November 2025 submitted by the Applicant's Community Offender Manager (COM). No additional representations were made to the Panel with the exception of a request, made on 1 December 2025 that the making of a final decision by the Panel be adjourned to await the outcome of an appeal against a decision that had been made regarding the Applicant's accommodation in the event of a decision that he be released. The request was denied for reasons which are set out in the decision.

[3]This is an eligible case, and the application was made within the time limit for such applications. The case has been allocated to me as one of the members of the Board who are authorised to make decisions on reconsideration applications.

[4]I have considered this application on the papers which includes the dossier now comprising of 354 pages, the Panel's decision and written submissions on behalf of the Applicant. As I indicate below, the Secretary of State (the Respondent) has elected to make no submissions. The Application

[5]An application for reconsideration may be made on one or more of the following grounds:(a) that the panel's decision contained an error of law and/or

(b) that it was irrational and/or

(c) it was procedurally unfair. The arguments deployed by the Applicant's legal representative in support of this application will be discussed in some detail below.

[6]In general terms, the grounds for seeking a reconsideration of the Panel's decision in this case are that the Panel's decision is irrational and/or procedurally unfair in respect of five identified aspects of the Panel's treatment of the evidence. I shall return in some detail to the grounds. Background and History

[7]As at the date of the Panel hearing the Applicant was 40 years old. He had previous convictions dating back to 2006 which included offences of burglary and possession of a blade. The vast majority of his previous offending had been for sexual offences against children, totalling some 75 separate convictions, resulting in three prison sentences. It is noteworthy that he had during that period been convicted of breaching Notification Requirements and a Sexual Offences Prevention Order.

[8]The Applicant is considered by the Probation Service to be a prolific sexual predator with a confirmed sexual interest in male children. An earlier Parole Board panel sitting in 2023 acknowledged the complexity in understanding the factors that underpinned the Applicant's offending. It was accepted that his dysfunctional childhood had formed the basis of his anti-social and criminal behaviour and caused him to feel distrustful of adults. The same panel summarised his relevant risk factors as including having a sexual interest in boys, not coping with stress, poor emotional self-management and difficulties with relationships more widely.

[9]In respect of the index offences, he was sentenced on 11 May 2018 when aged 33, having pleaded guilty to offences committed over the period of a year during 2016 and 2017. He had befriended 13 boys, aged 8 to 13 online, using a gaming app in which he had represented himself as a boy of a similar age. His initial contact was with an 8 year old boy who introduced the Applicant to other friends from his school. The Applicant played on-line games with them before engaging them in sexualised conversations, sent inappropriate sexual messages, encouraged them to engage in sexual acts on themselves and to watch pornography. He superimposed the boy's heads onto naked images of boys. He was also found to be in possession of other non-sexualised images of boys.

[10]The Applicant had a disturbing history of sexual offending, targeting children. In 2007, when aged 21 he had been convicted of penetrative sexual activity with a child, as well as possessing indecent images. In that case he had robbed two young children and then very seriously sexually assaulted one of them, a young boy. This resulted in a Sexual Offences Prevention Order being made. In 2012, he was further convicted of possessing indecent images whereupon an indefinite Sexual Offences Prevention Order was made. In 2013, when aged 28, he breached the earlier Order by approaching 12 year old children and asking them intimate questions. The Judge recorded that event was of particular concern because on this occasion he was in possession of a knife. In addition, he was dealt with for possessing further indecent images.

[11]Having summarised the Applicant's background,

the Judge went on to deal with the index offences:

"You now fall to be sentenced for 30 further offences, arising out of multiple breaches of the Sexual Offences Prevention Order...over a sustained period, you have engaged in a persistent and determined campaign to groom as many young boys as you possibly could for the purpose of sexual activity and sexual gratification. "

You did so online by posing as a young boy yourself who was interested in online gaming. You caused or incited a number of them to engage in sexual activity, sometimes encouraging them to masturbated themselves, other times to engage in anal sex with you ... the indictment refers to 13 separate boys, aged between 8 and 13".

[12]The Judge noted that the Applicant also had to be dealt with, for the third time, for being in possession of a large number of indecent images. The Judge said:

"There can be absolutely no doubt that you are an extremely dangerous and manipulative predatory paedophile. From reading the report (a pre-sentence report prepared by the Probation Service) it is plain that you have sought to minimise your behaviour, you lack any appreciation of the seriousness of your offending, you do not consider that you have done anything wrong and your sexual interest in young boys is deep seated and...predatory in nature. "

Most significant perhaps is the conclusion that, had the opportunity presented itself, you would have committed sexual offences and so, whilst it is correct to note that these are inchoate offences (meaning not fully formed) had time moved on and had the opportunity presented itself, it is the conclusion of the author of the report and also the conclusion that I reach, having regard to the evidence in this case, that you would have followed through with what you were discussing, had the opportunity arose...it is significant that in the case of at least one of your victims you had managed to secure his address."

[13]The Judge found that he was in agreement with the author of the pre-sentence report that the Applicant met the criteria to be treated as someone who presented a significant risk of serious harm towards prepubescent boys and was therefore to be dealt with as a dangerous offender.

[14]It is of assistance to set out the Judge's conclusions which in his judgment required him to pass an extended sentence of some length.

The Judge said this:

"You do, and will continue to present a significant risk of committing further specified offences and by doing so you will cause serious physical or at least psychological harm to young boys...I have based that view upon a number of factors. That includes your previous offending...your complete disregard for the sex offender registration requirements...your behaviour towards your victims...this was a persistent and determined campaign against as many boys as you could possibly manage...your total lack of insight into your offending behaviour...and the view of the probation service that you meet the criteria for dangerousness."

[15]The sentence imposed in May 2018 was first reviewed by a panel of the Parole Board in October 2023. As the current Panel observed in their decision, the 2023 panel spent a lot of time questioning the Applicant about his offending and the motivation for it. Before that panel the Applicant said that he accepted full responsibility for his offending and expressed remorse for it. The previous panel also recorded the fact that the Applicant confirmed that he had, from the age of 15, been sexually interested in boys which feelings had become increasingly entrenched as he got older. The current Panel's decision records that he told the 2023 panel that his earlier offending arose out of his retreat into the world of online gaming where he found a circle of mainly teenage boys who were usually younger than him, were not critical of him and who looked up to him. The Relevant Law The test for release on licence

[16]Under the codified Public Protection test the panel could only direct the Applicant's release on licence if they were satisfied that his continued confinement in prison was no longer necessary for the protection of the public, and they could only be so satisfied if they considered that (if the prisoner were to be no longer confined in prison) there would be no more than a minimal risk of his committing a further offence so serious that it might result in serious harm to somebody else. Rules relating to reconsideration of decisions

[17]Under 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

[18]As already noted the application in this case is made on the grounds of irrationality and procedural unfairness which will be discussed in some detail below. The definition of irrationality

[19]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.

[20]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. "

[21]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).

[22]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.

[23]It follows from those principles that in considering an application for reconsideration, I cannot and will not substitute my view of the evidence for that of the Panel who heard and saw the witnesses.

[24]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

[25]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.

[26]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.

[27]The overriding objective is to ensure that the Applicant's case was dealt with justly. Mistakes of Fact

[28]For a mistake of fact made by a decision maker to result in the final decision being found to be irrational, the mistake must be fundamental. The case of E v Secretary of State for the Home Department

[2004] QB 1044

sets out the preconditions for such a conclusion:

"...there must have been a mistake as to an existing fact, including a mistake as to the availability of evidence on a particular matter; the fact or evidence must have been "established" in the sense that it was uncontentious and objectively verifiable; the appellant (or his advisors) must not have been responsible for the mistake; and the mistake must have played a material (though not necessarily decisive) part in the tribunal's reasoning"

[29]See also R (Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Enviroment, Transport and the Regions [2003]AC 295, which held that in order to establish there was a demonstrable mistake of fact in the decision of a panel, an Applicant will have to provide "objectively verifiable evidence" of what is asserted to be the true picture. Reconsideration as a discretionary remedy

[30]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

[31]The Respondent indicated via email on 8 January 2026 that no representations are made on his behalf regarding this application. The Evidence before the Panel

[32]For the purpose of deciding this application, a convenient starting point is a summary of what I regard as the particularly important aspects of the evidence considered by the Panel. I make it absolutely clear that in reaching my findings and conclusions on this application I have considered all of the material placed before me. The absence of a specific reference in this decision to a particular part of the evidence must not be taken to indicate that it has been overlooked or not taken into account.(a) The Applicant had previously been issued with a manager's warning (leading to a decision not to recall him) following disclosures he had made during a Polygraph examination in June 2024. That examination concluded that the Applicant was likely being untruthful in his depiction of contact with another registered sex offender known for these purposes as DR.

(b) It was suspected by professionals that the Applicant may have been engaging in sexual telecommunications with DR and possibly other registered sex offenders. While the Applicant is recorded as repeatedly and vehemently denying such contact, the evidence shows that concerns remained largely because the extent of the personal information DR knew about the Applicant (and which he disclosed) suggested that there was little likelihood of this individual having such information about the Applicant in the absence of direct communication between them. It is convenient to mention here that when questioned by the Panel about his relationship and any contact with DR (which was and would be strictly prohibited by licence conditions) the Applicant initially denied all knowledge but then in his evidence told the Panel that he had known DR in prison but had tried to distance himself from him owing to DR's " obsession " with the Applicant. He admitted to the Panel that he had received a letter from DR while living at his approved address.

(c) Evidence from the police showed that the Applicant was not living at his approved address since at least November 2024 (that is to say several months after his release on licence). The Panel heard that during a visit by the police the Applicant tried to mislead officers by directing them to an address where he no longer lived while claiming he could not access the address because of a problem with keys. In fact, he had been staying at yet another address which had previously been assessed as wholly unsuitable because it was located very close to a school.

(d) The conclusion reached by the COM (the probation officer responsible for the Applicant when in the community) and others was that the Applicant had been evasive and dishonest with professionals tasked with supervising and monitoring his risk in the community.

(e) The COM also recorded that both police and probation strongly suspected that he had been in possession of a second mobile phone to facilitate contact with DR - thereby in serious breach of a licence condition regarded as essential for mitigating the risk of further sexual offending. It was noted by the COM that while these essentials could not be evidenced it was believed that the Applicant's deception and misleading of professionals was indicative of behaviour that could make further offending more likely.

(f) The decision to recall was based on the widely held view that the Applicant had breached a licence condition to reside as directed and also to what are described as "strong suspicions" that he had breached the condition not to have contact with other registered sex offenders.

(g) The Panel found that by January 2025 (the Applicant having been recalled on 20 December 2024), there was no support among the professionals engaged in the case that re-release could be supported. The concerns identified were regarding deception on the part of the Applicant, a lack of honesty and a concern that he could not be relied upon to abide by licence conditions.

(h) The Panel noted the evidence that on his return to prison the Applicant had written to his COM to apologise for not being more honest about his problems with accommodation. He said he had moved out because he was afraid of his neighbour who had threatened to kill him. He denied being in any kind of relationship with DR or having contact with him or any other registered sex offender. The Applicant told his COM that DR was an "obsessive" who may have been trying to cause problems.

(i) In a subsequent report to the Panel from the COM, he confirmed that the Applicant is someone about whom there are "significant concerns about [his] openness and honesty with professionals." It is said that his recall indicates that his compliance with external controls and supervision is likely to deteriorate over time.

(j) The COM'S report is dated just one month before the date of the oral hearing. It is said that the Applicant is assessed as not fully recognising his own risk profile and risk factors and further that the professionals had significant ongoing concerns relating to the Applicant's honesty and compliance. The COM noted that he was unable to assert with any authority that the Applicant would, if released, abide by his conditions of release on licence. The COM referred to the updated Psychological Risk Assessment which also argued against release citing a shared concern regarding the Applicant's capacity to comply with the conditions attached to any subsequent release.

(k) A police officer (from the Public Protection Unit) in her evidence confirmed the content of a report she had prepared for the Panel. The officer said that the police had no firm evidence of contact between the Applicant and DR. She added that whilst there was a strong suspicion that the Applicant had a second unregistered mobile phone, but no actual device had been found. The Panel was advised that the Applicant did have an unregistered email address as well as unregistered bank cards both of which constituted a breach of the Sexual Offences Prevention Order, but no action had been taken thereon by the police as the Applicant had been recalled.

(l) The COM in his evidence to the Panel confirmed that probation had been aware of the Applicant's difficulties with his neighbour from September 2024 (that is 7 months after his release on licence). The COM also confirmed that the Applicant told him in early September 2024 that he had been offered another address by his landlord. The Panel confirmed that the evidence was that an agreement had been made with probation that the Applicant could spend days at this alternative address provided he returned to the original (known and approved address) to sleep overnight. It was this agreed arrangement that the Panel described in its decision as being "difficult to understand given that [the alternative address] had previously been assessed as unsuitable due to its proximity to a school". The Panel records the COM indicating that he did not consider this arrangement to be a breach of the licence nor did he identify any potential increase in risk associated with the Applicant being in the vicinity of school children, during the day, every day.

(m) The Applicant gave evidence. When asked about DR, he told the Panel he knew him in prison but tried to keep his distance because he felt that DR had an obsession with him. He accepted that he had received a letter from DR while living at an approved address, but he maintained he never replied. He was also asked about his contact with a boy working at a foodbank whilst he was on licence. He had told probation that the boy had triggered in him sexual thoughts. To the Panel he said that he had experienced a "fleeting" sexual thought. The Panel observed that he did not explain this discrepancy during his evidence.

(n) In her formulation of risk, the psychologist who prepared the Psychological Risk Assessment identified childhood trauma as a key risk factor for the Applicant linked to the development of distorted ideas about sex at a very early age, anxiety, poor sexual boundaries and associations with older men which further entrenched his thinking. She explained that she could not recommend release because of her concerns that the Applicant had a tendency to offer elaborate explanations for his behaviours both in offending and on release. She noted that while able to verbalise his behaviours are inappropriate, when invited to expand on this he reaffirms distortions, for example, his attribution of responsibility for his offending to his child victims, to which she added her concerns that he still has offence supporting beliefs despite saying at the same time that he knows his behaviours to be problematic.

(o) She described the Applicant's explanations for his conduct on licence as " elaborate "' (a description that the Panel indicated it recognised) adding that some of the Applicant's presentation during his evidence appeared to be somewhat rehearsed. The psychologist told the Panel that in her view the Applicant, when challenged about events leading to his recall gave detailed explanations which were in her opinion overly complicated and at times implausible. She was of the opinion that he continues to minimise and deny much of his behaviour which has, in her view, a significant impact on the issue of risk. For her, the Applicant's actions are at odds with his apparent understanding of his risks and triggers which calls into question his commitment to change. The Grounds for Reconsideration Ground 1: Breach of The Residence Condition

[33]It is submitted in Ground 1 that the Panel's conclusion that it could be satisfied that the Applicant had deliberately breached his licence condition of residence at a specific address was not a conclusion they were entitled to reach because it was not supported by the evidence and was consequentially irrational. It is submitted in support of that contention that "it was expressly accepted during the oral hearing that probation had given him permission to reside at [address provided]" and further that "the Community Manager accepted that the instructions given to [the Applicant] were confusing and vague" . Therefore, it is submitted that it was not rational for the Panel to find that the Applicant had deliberately breached his residence condition in circumstances where he had been given contradictory directions by supervising authorities, in circumstances where there was evidence that the Applicant had good reason to move elsewhere having reported being threatened and assaulted by a close neighbour. Analysis

[34]In closing submissions prepared by the legal representative on behalf of the Applicant dated 7 November 2025 it was submitted that the Applicant accepted the decision to recall him "in its entirety".

[35]It is submitted that this particular finding by the Panel was irrationally inconsistent with the evidence that the Applicant had been given permission by his COM to reside at an alternative address at least during the day (see: The Evidence before the Panel above in paragraph 32(l). In support of this contention, the Applicant relies upon the comment in the Panel's decision that the instructions given to the Applicant by his COM "may have been confusing and ultimately risky for [the Applicant]".

[36]Further, it is submitted that the fact that the Panel accepted that the Applicant had good reason to be afraid of his neighbour (and as a result wished to move away) materially undermines the adverse inferences drawn by the Panel regarding the Applicant's motivation and honesty.

[37]In reaching its decision the Panel made clear it had carefully considered all the evidence and found assistance in the submissions made on the Applicant's behalf by his solicitor following the oral hearing, which included the submission that the Applicant accepted that his recall had been justified. The Panel went on to confirm that it had, as it was required to do, considered separately whether the recall was nonetheless appropriate. The Panel (sensibly in my judgment) accepted that the agreement apparently reached between the COM and the Applicant was " confusing and ultimately risky " for the Applicant before finding that he had undoubtedly breached a condition of his licence to reside as directed and therefore his recall was indeed appropriate. The Panel also made abundantly clear that they reached this decision noting the context in which the decision to recall had been taken and the mounting concerns regarding contact with DR, suspicions of the existence of a second mobile telephone and his persistent avoidance of Public Protection Officers trying to visit him at home.

[38]Whether the COM was in error in reaching an agreement with the Applicant regarding accommodation is not something I need to decide. The position is that the Applicant was in clear and prolonged breach of a critically important condition of his licence as was accepted on his behalf. The Panel had clearly before it the background to and circumstances of the recall and the evidence of the Applicant himself as well as the submissions made on his behalf.

[39]The findings and conclusions reached by the Panel and the approach it took in respect of the so-called agreement between the Applicant and the COM over accommodation were in my judgment open to them to reach. It should be borne in mind that the Panel were concerned here with a prisoner who was someone who had experienced more than once being subject to limitations and restrictions placed upon him having been released on licence from a prison sentence.

[40]This Ground is not sustainable and must fail. Ground 2: Failure to Notify Probation re: Accommodation Address

[41]This Ground is of course very closely associated with Ground 1. It is submitted in Ground 2 that the Panel were not entitled to find as they did, namely that it was "still not clear" why the Applicant failed to inform the police and probation that he had moved addresses "and that no credible explanation has been provided". It is asserted that such a finding is factually incorrect and therefore irrational. Analysis

[42]It is necessary to rehearse how the Panel's decision in this regard was expressed:

"Despite a promising start, [the Applicant] was recalled to prison because of mounting concerns about his behaviour and doubts about where he was living. Despite all the evidence available to the Panel, it is still not clear why [the Applicant] chose not to tell either the police or the probation service he had moved or to be fully open and honest about difficulties leading to this decision. No credible explanation has been provided for why DR knew so much about what [the Applicant] was doing, and there remain many unanswered questions about this and the other concerns identified. "

The Panel did not find [the Applicant] to be a credible witness... At the hearing, [the Applicant] tended to apportion blame for his decisions elsewhere and did not convince the Panel that he genuinely understood where he had gone wrong"

[43]It is submitted that the Panel's opinion that it was " still not clear" why he had failed to notify the appropriate authorities that he had moved and that there was "no credible explanation" had been provided were both factually incorrect and ignored the evidence the Applicant had given to the Panel. It is submitted, in terms, that the Panel's conclusions failed to engage with the evidence that the Applicant had given to the Panel and was therefore irrational.

[44]I regret to say that these submissions are without merit. In R (DSD and others) v the Parole Board

[2018] EWHC 694 (Admin)

the Divisional Court set out the test for irrationality to be applied in judicial reviews of Parole Board decisions. The court held that in deciding whether a decision of the Parole Board was irrational, due deference had to be given to the expertise of the Parole Board in making decisions relating to parole.

[45]It may be said that it is not paying due deference to a panel of the Parole Board to suggest that it was not permitted to indicate that the evidence they had heard on a critically important aspect of the case was "not clear" to them and about which " no credible explanation " had been provided in their opinion on that part of the case. It does not appear to be appreciated that simply because the Applicant asserted something in his evidence that necessarily makes it so. The Panel did not find the Applicant to be a credible witness on important matters. That was a conclusion open to them and one they were perfectly entitled to reach.

[46]This Ground must fail. Ground 3: 'DR' Analysis

[47]It is right to note that the Panel did accept that there was no irrefutable evidence of the Applicant having been in contact with DR a registered sex offender. Therefore, the Panel made no finding in relation to this one way or the other. It is submitted that, in effect, that should have put an end to this aspect of the case and that it was irrational of the Panel to apparently continue to attach any weight to it.

[48]The suggested connection with a convicted sex offender was a factor taken into account by all the professional witnesses. A singular aspect of it was the search for what was described as a " credible explanation " for how and why DR knew so much about the private activities of the Applicant. For the Panel this was another example of many unanswered questions about this, and several other abiding concerns identified by the professional witnesses and by the Panel.

[49]In complex and serious cases there are matters raised that are incapable of a final resolution. The important point is that that alone cannot and should not prevent a panel from hearing as much as possible before deciding what weight can be attached to it.

[50]Fairness demands that, should he wish to do so, a prisoner can give evidence to a panel in response to matters such as these. That is precisely what happened in this case in respect of the issues around DR. He gave his evidence about this particular aspect of the evidence and several others. I have earlier addressed the view the Panel took of the Applicant's credibility.

[51]It is submitted that the Panel engaged in " speculative reasoning " concerning the Applicant's knowledge of and connection with DR and used it in support of a finding against the Applicant. I am unable to accept that submission. It is clear that this was but one of a number of features in this case, which the Applicant denied, yet in respect of which there was some evidence but not enough to provide the Panel with a sufficient basis for it in the final analysis to be taken it into account, or if it was taken into account given much weight.

[52]Taking a step back and considering the decision as a whole I do not find that the manner in which this part of the evidence was treated by the Panel could properly be characterised as amounting to irrationality. The Panel dealt with it in an appropriate and neutral way placing it alongside other information such as the suggestion of the presence of another mobile telephone, internet access, the avoidance of police and probation officers and the like. It may be said that with so many factors in play it might have been preferable for the Panel to have given an indication of the degree of weight that they thought it right to attach to this and other matters. That said, I remain entirely satisfied that the absence of such an indication did not amount to irrational speculative reasoning on the Panel's part.

[53]This Ground fails. Ground 4: A second mobile - Error of Fact Analysis

[54]It is submitted that the Panel placing undue weight on the possible unproven existence of a mobile telephone amounts to a material error of fact. I disagree. As I have explained above, for an error of fact to be found to be irrational, the mistake must be fundamental. There is no mistake here. An item of potentially considerable importance could not be found.

[55]Just as in respect of my comments on Ground 3, I find here that the Panel treated this item in an appropriate and fair-minded way. Ground 5: The Psychological Evidence Analysis

[56]In this ground it is submitted that the Panel placed significant reliance on the evidence of the Psychologist. It is submitted that the Panel failed to balance the significant body of work by way of interventions undertaken by the Applicant when in prison against the conclusion reached that he had failed to sufficiently internalise his learning. In addition, it is submitted that insufficient weight has been placed upon his engagement in programmes since his recall.

[57]In its decision the Panel noted that the Applicant had completed all core risk reduction work, having been assessed in the past as having a good insight into his risks. It went on to find as demonstrated by the evidence and information produced leading to recall, that he had not put his learning into practice when he had an opportunity to do so. Again, a conclusion they were entitled to reach.

[58]The Panel found the psychologist's evidence to be balanced and well-reasoned. Her written report in the Dossier is detailed and clear and deals with the Applicant's response to treatment.

[59]The Panel accepted that the Applicant's minimisation of his offending and his lack of openness and honesty have a direct and adverse impact on the effectiveness of risk management in the community. The Panel was not at all confident in his assertions about future compliance.

[60]The decision notes in particular the submission made by his legal representative at the conclusion of the evidence that the Applicant's conduct and compliance since recall have been consistently good.

[61]I have found no evidence that supports the submission that the Panel failed to fully consider the work done by the Applicant prior to his release when reaching the conclusion that he had not internalised his learning nor developed empathy. On my reading of the decision, the reverse is the case. There are several examples of the Panel balancing the work undertaken prior to release with all the evidence regarding his conduct on licence. Indeed, it can be said that the significant disconnect between the two formed the basis for his recall and the enquiry mounted by the Panel in the search for causes and acceptable explanations.

[62]This Ground also fails. Conclusion

[63]In my judgment the only basis for any reconsideration in this case would be on the grounds of irrationality; there is no basis for any finding of procedural unfairness nor error of law. To be clear, while, as I have indicated above, there is the possibility to argue that mistakes in findings of fact may render a decision irrational, there is no basis for such a finding in this application.

[64]This is a serious case, demonstrated by the length of sentence passed by the Judge on a plea of guilty. It is no surprise therefore that the Panel took as its starting point the gravity of the index offending which extended an already very well established pattern of sexual offending committed against male children as young as 8 years old. The combination of factors underpinning the Applicant's sexual offending was complex and multi-faceted. Sadly, the Applicant himself suffered a dysfunctional childhood which formed in the opinion of the experts the basis of his anti-social and criminal behaviour.

[65]These complexities were all recognised and addressed by a Parole Board panel in October 2023 which directed the Applicant's release on licence which took place in February 2024. Ten months later, following the coming to light of a number of disturbing concerns, but in particular the critical breach of the residence condition, the unanimous view of all the experts engaged in the Applicant's case concluded that the Applicant's licence should be revoked.

[66]The current Panel had the advantage of a fresh psychological risk assessment. In a clear and comprehensive report, the psychologist highlighted the Applicant's history of general and sexual violence citing additional factors linked to anti-social behaviour, use of weapons, problems with interpersonal relationships, violent attitudes and childhood experiences of violence and domestic abuse.

[67]The circumstances of and the reasons for the Applicant's recall to prison were central to the outcome of the oral hearing. Those events were in my view, rigorously and fairly examined by the Panel which was faced with attempting to resolve a number of issues and endeavouring to draw fair and reasoned conclusions where required and where possible. It is clear from a detailed consideration of the decision as a whole that the Panel's main concern was an emerging and serious lack of transparency and openness on the part of the Applicant and the professionals (including the police) engaged with him. One decisive example found clearly established by the Panel, was the fact that he had knowingly deceived the police in relation to where he was residing and had breached a condition of his licence to live as directed which was, as I have already said, in the context of the Applicant's offending history, of obvious importance to consideration of the risk of further offending.

[68]None of the professional witnesses who gave evidence recommended re-release. All, unsurprisingly, expressed concerns about the circumstances leading to his recall and his persistent lack of honesty and openness with professionals closest to him.

[69]The Panel concluded that the evidence clearly showed that the Applicant continued to present a high risk of sexual re-offending and a high risk of serious harm to a child or children; and further that that evidence was to be found in the entrenched and repeated pattern of his sexual offending, his failure to put his learning from a number of interventions into practice, his lack of honesty with professionals and the Panel (as found by the Panel) and the failure of external controls to monitor and enforce compliance with licence conditions over a considerable period of time.

[70]In my judgment, an experienced panel with commendable thoroughness and clarity provided a carefully constructed, balanced and fair-minded analysis of all the evidence and information before them. It was the Panel's duty to consider every relevant aspect of the case. It is in my judgment abundantly clear from the decision that the Panel did just that and placed various serious concerns of the professionals appropriately into the context of the review as a whole when carrying out its global assessment of the Applicant's risks.

[71]The Panel clearly had very serious concerns regarding critically important aspects of the management of the Applicant's risks if released into the community. At the conclusion of the evidence, it was clear that a complete RMP was not available. Further time was granted to the parties, followed by two paper reviews, and the invitation to make further submissions before the Panel rejected an application for more time for reasons fully explained in the decision. No criticism of these steps taken by the Panel is made by either party, nor could there be.

[72]In my judgment, the Panel applied the established principles of law and satisfied their public law duty to provide evidence-based reasons that adequately and sufficiently explained the conclusions that were reached.

[73]In my judgment, it cannot be sensibly argued that this was a decision that no reasonable panel could have come to upon all the evidence before them. Decision

[74]For all the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the decision was irrational and accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused. HH Michael Topolski KC 21 January 2026