Deghayes, Application for reconsideration [2026] PBRA 25 (03 February 2026) [2026] PBRA 25
[1]This is an application by Deghayes (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision on the papers dated 7 November 2025 not 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 the paper decision, the dossier consisting of 229 pages and the application for reconsideration. Request for Reconsideration[4]The application for reconsideration is dated 30 December 2025. It has been drafted by Solicitors on behalf of the Applicant. It submits that the decision was procedurally unfair.[5]The grounds for seeking a reconsideration are that the Applicant was not properly informed of the case against him, was prevented from putting his case and the decision was based on incomplete evidence. There are further written arguments to which reference will be made in the Discussion section below. Background[6]The Applicant received a sentence for offenders of particular concern on 21 April 2022, confirmed by the Court of Appeal on 25 January 2023. The sentence following his conviction for encouraging terrorism was for 4 years comprising a custodial element of 3 years followed by an additional licence period of one year.[7]The Applicant was aged 54 at the time of sentencing before the trial judge and is now 57 years old.[8]He was released automatically on 16 April 2025, his licence was revoked on 18 September 2025 and he was returned to custody on 19 September 2025. Current parole review[9]The Applicant's case was referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State (the Respondent) to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to direct his release. 10.The case was considered on the papers. The panel did not direct the Applicant's release. The Relevant Law[11]The panel correctly sets out in its decision letter dated 7 November 2025 the test for release. Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)[12]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)).[13]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 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;(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. The overriding objective is to ensure that the Applicant's case was dealt with justly. The reply on behalf of the Secretary of State 17.The Respondent has submitted no representations in response to this application. Discussion 18.The Applicant relies on the finding by the panel that " it had been hampered by the inadequate preparation of the dossier " to submit that his representations were not considered by the panel. He states that he was " entitled to a copy of his parole dossier after his recall and certainly before his review took place at MCA stage " 19.The Applicant further submits that the panel failed to consider the recall matters and the failure to adjourn to receive the missing information is an indication that the panel did not adequately analyse the evidence presented and the decision was not fairly balanced. 20.The Applicant was recalled and returned to custody on 19 September 2025. It is unfortunate if he did not receive a copy of the dossier, but it is also surprising that he did not request a copy of the papers in the matter concerning his recall. He had a meeting with the COM on 7 October 2025 at which the recall report was discussed. He was also questioned about future compliance and would have been aware of the COM's concerns. His representations dated 20 October 2025 simply stated that he expected a list of named individuals (whose names he gave with no contact details or identification or indication of relevance) to make representations on his behalf. He provides no details of how the representations were to be made, what representations he wished to make or to be made on his behalf, he does not seek an adjournment or complain about lack of papers/dossier. The MCA member was not obliged to adjourn to seek further particulars regarding the lack of detail in the representations and could not have anticipated that the absence of complaint hid a concern regarding non receipt of the dossier. There was nothing to indicate that further evidence was available or necessary, and nothing to indicate that there would be any procedural unfairness in proceeding to determine the case on the papers. 21.The panel considered all the matters in the dossier and noted the omissions from the dossier. However the omission of information and inadequacy of the dossier is not a ground of procedural unfairness. Procedural unfairness relates to the making of the decision and in making its decision the panel took into account all the evidence presented. On the basis of the evidence the panel could not direct release. An oral hearing would have been necessary to consider release and in the light of the Applicant's release date of April 2026, it would not have been possible to adjourn to receive additional evidence and then to set a date for hearing before the Applicant was released. There was no procedural unfairness in the decision to proceed on the papers or in the conclusions reached. Decision 22.For the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the decision was procedurally unfair and accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused. Barbara Mensah 03 February 2026