Jones, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 21 (26 January 2026) [2026] PBRA 21

PBRA

Jones, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 21 (26 January 2026)

[2026] PBRA 21 · 2025-09-29

[1]This is an application by Jones (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of an oral hearing panel dated the 29 September 2025 not to direct release. As noted below the date of the decision is likely to have been recorded in error.

[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 decision of the oral hearing panel, the representations by the Applicant's legal adviser and the representations by the Secretary of State (the Respondent). Request for Reconsideration

[4]The application for reconsideration is dated 23 December 2025.

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

[6]The Applicant is serving an extended sentence of imprisonment for the offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily harm and robbery. The sentence consists of a custodial period of 13 years and an extension of two years. The Applicant became eligible for parole in August 2024. The Applicant was aged 33 at the time of sentence. He was aged 43 at the time of the panel oral hearing.

[7]The index offence was exceptionally serious. The Applicant and two others had been drinking. The Applicant and his co-accused approached a 67 year old man who was walking home through a park. The man was unknown to them. The Applicant and his co-accused initially verbally abused him and then took him to the ground and attacked him by kicking and stamping upon him. They stole a wedding ring a mobile phone and some cash and bank cards. The victim was extremely seriously affected and has life changing injuries which have had devastating consequences for him and his family. The Applicant was on licence at the time of committing the index offence. He had been released from prison on licence having served a sentence of five years imprisonment for robbery. That robbery involved attacking the manager of a public house having entered the rear of the premises. The Applicant stole a substantial amount of cash in the course of that robbery. The Applicant had a long history of convictions including three relating to assault. Current parole review

[8]The referral from the Respondent requested that the Parole Board consider whether the Applicant should be made the subject of a direction for release. This was the first review of the Applicant's sentence.

[9]The panel hearing was conducted on 29 September 2025. The panel consisted of an independent chair a further independent member and a psychiatrist member of the Parole Board. Evidence was given by a Prison Offender Manager (POM), a prison commissioned psychologist, a POM from an earlier prison, two prison service witnesses and a Community Offender Manager. The Applicant was legally represented and gave evidence himself. The Relevant Law

[10]The panel correctly sets out in its decision letter dated 29 September 2025 the test for release. Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)

[11]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)).

[12]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)).

[13]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

[14]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.

[15]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. "

[16]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).

[17]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.

[18]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.

[19]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

[20]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.

[21]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.

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

[23]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.

[24]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

[25]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

[26]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

[27]The Respondent offered no representations. Discussion Ground 1

[28]The Applicant's legal adviser submits that there is insufficient evidence that the panel considered the legal submissions submitted by the Applicant's legal adviser. Discussion

[29]This case had a rather extended history. The matter first came before a Parole Board panel for an oral hearing on 7 August 2024. The matter was adjourned on that day. The adjournment was to secure further information about matters which had arisen prior to the first hearing. The panel also experienced difficulty in securing information from the prison about matters which were required to be considered in relation to risk.

[30]The oral hearing eventually took place over one year later, on 29 September 2025. The panel heard the bulk of the evidence on that day. However, further information was outstanding, and the matter was therefore adjourned for written updates to be submitted to the dossier prior to concluding the case on the papers.

[31]The panel also requested that the Applicant's legal adviser submit written representations by 9 October 2025. Those written submissions were submitted on time. Following those submissions further adjournments were noted, again because of concerning delays in providing suitable information to the panel relating to matters which had arisen in the hearing. The final decision was incorrectly dated as being made on the 29 September 2025. It was in fact not made until December 2025 and was issued (as noted by the Applicant's legal adviser) on the 9 December 2025.

[32]The Applicant's legal adviser firstly raises an issue relating to the first adjournment of this case. When adjourned, the panel directed that there should be a case conference and set out the witnesses to attend that case conference. This was a sensible and appropriate decision, in the circumstances, to ensure that the case was kept on track and, importantly, to ensure that the parties and the prisoner and his legal adviser were kept aware of the ongoing progress of the case. No date was set for the case conference, in my determination it is good practice to set a date when adjourning, for the simple reason that all parties are usually present, and their availability is readily ascertainable on the day.

[33]No case conference in fact took place, and no notice, explaining why a case conference was not scheduled, appeared on the dossier. The panel had apparently indicated to the Applicant, at the first hearing, that the case would be listed " relatively quickly ".

[34]The Applicant's legal adviser reports that attempts were made by her to contact the Parole Board to ascertain the current position. The Applicant's legal adviser reports that on 29 January 2025 (some six months since the first adjournment) the legal adviser was told that the case had " dropped off the radar ".

[35]On the dossier are three response forms completed by the panel chair on 9 October 2024, the 7 May 2025 and 19 June 2025.

[36]On 9 October 2024 the panel chair (responding to an application by the Respondent dated 9 October 2024) dealt with a request to revise a direction about security information. Although the panel chair had clearly addressed the case on 9 October 2024, no further information about the listing of the case for hearing, or any update relating to a case conference, nor any explanation for the delay was recorded on the dossier. There would be no requirement for a panel chair to record such information, however in terms of both courtesy and active case management, the progress of the case should be addressed in formal dossier documents to ensure that all parties are aware of the future plan and timeline for the case.

[37]The response forms completed by the chair and dated in May and June 2025 were routine responses to requests relating to witness changes. The documents note that by this date an oral hearing date of the 29 September 2025 had been scheduled. This listing (of the hearing date) was clearly undertaken administratively. It is unclear why the matter was being listed almost a year after the original scheduled hearing date. It appears possible that the panel were awaiting a full report from the security department of the prison. It may also have been that witnesses could not offer earlier dates. However again it is incumbent on Parole Board panels to explain either on the dossier or in the final decision, in general terms, the progress of the case.

[38]The final decision of the panel gives no explanation about the delays but records that " unfortunately the hearing was unable to be reconvened until 29 September 2025 ".

[39]As indicated above a hearing was conducted on 29 September 2025. The hearing was again adjourned. The reasons for the adjournment were understandable and related to further evidence which the panel required in order to reach their final conclusion. The direction from the panel was to provide two pieces of further information by 6 October 2025. The panel indicated that " once these two documents have been added to the dossier " the Applicant's legal adviser was invited to submit written closing submissions. The panel indicated that the decision would be issued within 14 days of the receipt of the closing submissions.

[40]One of the two documents was provided to the panel within the directed time frame, the other, again a security report, did not arrive within the directed time. The Applicant's legal adviser, in any event, presented legal submissions which were dated 9 October 2025.

[41]The panel adjourned the matter once again on 20 October 2025 and gave the security department at the prison until 3 November 2025 to comply with the outstanding direction.

[42]The security department again failed to comply with the direction of the panel. On 29 September 2025 the panel again adjourned the case directing the security department to provide the report that was requested. The matter was adjourned until 17 November 2025.

[43]Eventually an email dated 4 November 2025 provided the information required of the security department.

[44]On 30 November 2025 the panel chair apologised for the delay and indicated that the decision would be issued by 8 December 2025. The Applicant's legal adviser indicates that the decision in fact arrived on 9 December 2025.

[45]The decision itself recorded that the hearing took place on 29 September 2025. The finalised written decision was incorrectly dated 29 September 2025. It is not clear why the decision was not dated as either the 8 or 9 of December.

[46]The written decision notes that additional papers had been received after the formal oral hearing. Those papers included closing submissions from the legal representative. The panel therefore formally acknowledged that they had received the representations from the legal representative.

[47]The panel also noted in its preamble that it had taken into consideration " all the evidence hearing [sic] at the hearings and all that [sic] contained within the dossier ".

[48]As noted above the complaint in this case is that the panel failed to follow the Parole Board guidance in relation to writing decisions. That guidance indicates that " any submissions from the prisoner's representative should be summarised either in this section [the conclusion section] or in another suitable place ".

[49]Panel members are also offered short " tips " to assist with decision writing. With regard to this aspect of decision writing the appropriate tip reads as follows " Have you summarised succinctly all the relevant risk related evidence and submissions by the parties, and briefly included the arguments and evidence both for and against any particular contention? ".

[50]The Applicant's legal adviser submits that there is no evidence that the panel followed this aspect of the Parole Board guidance, despite indicating that they had received the legal submissions.

[51]I have considered the submissions by the Applicant's legal adviser. The format is 18 bullet points with short references to the Applicant's ambitions for the future and the evidence that he gave at the hearing. Whilst it is entirely a matter for a legal adviser to decide how to submit representations following a hearing, the format did not allow for easy summarising of the key points in issue. However, the Parole Board guidance expects panels to refer directly to the content of submissions within decisions and to summarise the key points themselves (as best they can). Good practice would also include reasons for either supporting or rejecting any submissions.

[52]It is also indicated in the guidance that " Co-panellists have an essential role to play in checking the accuracy, coverage, and presentation of the draft, including the front pages of the template ". It is clearly contemplated that co-panellists, when reviewing a decision, should ensure that the decision applies the relevant guidance, including (importantly) the guidance relating to legal submissions.

[53]The rationale for this guidance is clearly associated with the need for both parties to be reassured that the panel have reached a balanced decision and have applied relevant weight to the competing arguments.

[54]I have considered with care this ground. I fully acknowledge that the panel may well have appropriately considered the submissions by the legal adviser and taken account of them generally in their final decision. However, the absence of any reference to the detail of the submissions within the decision itself inevitably raises the concern and suspicion that those submissions were not properly considered by the panel before reaching its decision.

[55]It may well have been that (after due consideration of the legal submissions), a similar decision (regarding release), would have been reached, however decision makers are under a duty to actively address legal submissions, to reassure a prisoner that his case and the submissions upon his case have been appropriately considered before reaching a decision.

[56]For these reasons I have concluded that there has been a procedural irregularity in this case, namely a failure to follow Parole Board guidance relating to the consideration and summarising of legal submissions, and I therefore direct that the matter should be reconsidered. Further Grounds

[57]The Applicant's legal adviser also submitted further grounds relating to the irrationality of the decision. I have not dealt with those submissions in detail. In general terms I would have required some considerable persuasion to find that the decision in this case was irrational. There were identifiable and persuasive grounds for concluding that the Applicant did not meet the test for release, however as I have concluded that the matter should be reconsidered this will now be a matter for a fresh panel to consider. Delay and case management

[58]Although not an issue directly impacting upon reconsideration, as noted above this was a case which had lengthy and unexplained delays. It is likely that those delays came about as a result of the reluctance by the prison to promptly provide requested information. A Parole Board panel should not be obliged to make repeated requests for information which is essential in terms of the public duty to manage risk.

[59]However, Parole Board panels and Parole Board case managers should also ensure that cases are not permitted to drift and become inordinately delayed. The use of case management hearings and other case management tools should be applied, and a timeline of recent adjournments should always be available on the dossier to ensure that the parties, and in particular the prisoner and the prisoner's legal representatives are aware of the current position regarding the progress of any case. Decision

[60]Accordingly, whilst I do not find there to have been an irrational conclusion, I do consider, applying the test as defined in case law, the decision to have been procedurally unfair. I do so solely for the reasons set out above. The application for reconsideration is therefore granted, and the case should be reviewed by a fresh by way of an oral hearing. HH Stephen Dawson 26 January 2026