Romans, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 27 (28 January 2026) [2026] PBRA 27
[1]This is an application by Romans (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of an oral hearing panel dated the 23 December 2025 the decision of the panel was not to direct 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 dossier, the oral hearing panel decision, the representations by the Applicant's legal adviser and the representations of the Secretary of State (the Respondent). Request for Reconsideration[4]The application for reconsideration is dated 12 January 2026.[5]The grounds for seeking a reconsideration are set out below. Background[6]The Applicant is serving a sentence of life imprisonment for the offence of manslaughter. His tariff expired on 7 September 2005. He was released on licence by a Parole Board panel on 8 January 2024. He was recalled to prison on 24 June 2024. The index offence was manslaughter. The index offences described below. The Applicant was 56 years old at the time of the oral hearing. He was 29 years old at the time of sentence for the index offence. Current parole review[7]The referral from the Secretary of State requested the Parole Board to consider whether the Applicant should be released. The Respondent had indicated that the Applicant was not eligible for a recommendation for transfer to an open prison. The Panel and the Applicant's legal adviser were unsure as to why the Applicant was ineligible for a recommendation for transfer to an open prison. The matter was raised by the panel at the outset of the hearing and the Applicant specifically indicated, through his legal adviser, that he did not wish to enquire further into the reasons for his ineligibility for a recommendation for transfer to an open prison. Accordingly, the panel proceeded on the basis of the referral that the Parole Board had received.[8]The oral hearing panel consisted of an independent chair of the Parole Board, a psychology member of the Parole Board and a further independent member of the Parole Board. The panel considered a dossier and received evidence from a Prison Offender Manager (POM), a prison instructed forensic psychologist, and the Community Offender Manager (COM) the Applicant was legally represented at the hearing. The Applicant gave evidence. The Relevant Law[9]The panel correctly sets out in its decision letter dated 23 December 2025 the test for release. Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)[10]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)).[11]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[12]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.[13]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. "[14]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).[15]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.[16]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.[17]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;(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. Error of law[21]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.[22]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[23]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[24]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[25]The Respondent offered no representations. Discussion Ground 1[26]The Applicant's legal adviser indicates that his client was firmly of the view that because of the client's involvement in the past in ideological extremism and racial violence the Parole Board deliberately selected panel members who would not approach the hearing with impartiality. The client argues that the evidence for this contention was the fact that the psychologist member was "somewhat overzealous" in questioning a prison psychologist. Discussion[27]The Applicant's legal adviser candidly notes that there is no independent evidence of the Parole Board specifically allocating the Applicant's case to panel members who would be biased against him. The Parole Board method of allocating panel members is entirely random and is based upon the availability of specific members on the days when cases are listed. The Parole Board are a court like body. Parole board staff are impartial members of the civil service and are required to abide by a strict code of impartiality in their delivery of services to the public and are bound by the public service requirements set out in Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) Regulations 2011 . Both the Parole Board administration and the Parole Board members have no specific interest in the individual outcomes of cases. The major interest is in ensuring that the rules relating to Parole Board hearings are adhered to. That the test for release is applied and that both parties to the proceedings namely the Secretary of State and the prisoner are afforded a full opportunity to make their case and submit representations.[28]Within the panel decision the panel accepted that there had been assessments of the likely risk of extremist offending by the Applicant. The panel noted there were no convictions for extremist offending and accepted that the Applicant's risk in terms of right-wing extremist behaviour was likely to be mitigated were he to find belonging, meaning and an identity in his life. It was also accepted that his interest in extremism was mellowing over time and that the Applicant was making efforts to adapt his views.[29]Having considered the written decision and the areas of concern and interest expressed by the panel in that written decision I am not persuaded that there is credible evidence of bias or a deliberate attempt to undermine the Applicant's opportunity to fully present his case. Panel members have different styles of approach in terms of questioning. Prisoners may often feel that the questioning is demanding and possibly negative however in the nature of contested proceedings parties will often feel upset by challenges to their position. I am not persuaded that this ground amounts to a procedural irregularity. Ground 2[30]It is submitted by the Applicant's legal adviser that the panel have failed to justify its conclusions and show evidence supporting the contention that the Applicant's risk of serious harm could not be safely managed in the community. It is submitted that this is reinforced by the fact that all three of the professional witnesses namely the POM, the COM, and the prison instructed psychologist were all supportive of a direction that the Applicant be rereleased into the community. Discussion[31]As is appropriately addressed by the Applicant's legal adviser this ground engages various considerations. Firstly, it is well understood that panels of the Parole Board are not obliged to adopt the opinions and recommendations of professional witnesses. It is their responsibility to make their own risk assessments and to evaluate the likely effectiveness of any risk management plan proposed. They must make up their own minds on the totality of the evidence that they hear, including any evidence from the Applicant. They would be failing in their duty to protect the public from serious harm (while also protecting the prisoner from unnecessary incarceration) if they failed to do just that. As was observed in the divisional Court in DSD they have the expertise to do it.[32]However, panels of the Parole Board who make a decision contrary to the opinions and recommendations of professional witnesses should explain clearly the reasons for so doing and importantly the stated reasons should be sufficient to justify the conclusions as per Wells above. Background[33]As noted above, the index offence in this case was a conviction for the offence of manslaughter. The Applicant had been married to the victim for a period of two weeks. It was said that at the time the Applicant was withdrawing from the use of various illicit drugs and had drunk some alcohol. The offence was described as a brutal killing by the sentencing judge. The Applicant inflicted a number of heavy blows to the head of the victim. The Applicant had pleaded guilty at trial to the offence of manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility. A psychiatric report indicated that the Applicant suffered from a psychopathic personality disorder. The panel conceded that the index offence had been committed some years ago and that the Applicant had been released on licence having served the prison sentence imposed by the judge.[34]So far as psychopathy was concerned the Applicant did not accept that the diagnosis was correct. The panel were bound to take account of the sentencing remarks and basis of conviction as set out by the sentencing judge. However, the panel were also conscious of the fact that the negative nature of psychopathy can reduce over time due to factors such as age, maturity, stability increased skills in self-regulation and the learning from interventions. The panel's approach was to acknowledge the presence of the diagnosis and to accept that it was a diagnosis which needed to be considered in terms of risk, but to balance the diagnosis against other evidence relating to the Applicants personality and behaviour.[35]So far as extremist behaviour is concerned the Applicant himself accepted that in the past he had been involved in racial and football violence and accepted that he had been involved with groups using such violence and using weapons. The Applicant had told the panel that his extreme and racist attitudes have not changed over time and would "never change". Despite this candid admission the panel were also told by the Applicant that he was no longer involved in violent behaviour and that he had not been involved for many years.[36]The Applicant had been released by a Parole Board panel in 2023. There had been various difficulties in terms of compliance by the Applicant with licence conditions. In February 2024, he had received a warning relating to using non-prescribed medication, in April 2024 he had received a further warning about sending inappropriate texts and asking a professional for a date. In May 2024 there had been an incident where the Applicant threatened a man after a family confrontation. In May 2024 the Applicant had received a warning relating to failing to disclose a relationship. The Applicant denied that his association with the female was a relationship however the supporting evidence indicated otherwise. The Applicant also admitted to a further "platonic relationship" with a woman. It appears that that relationship and not been disclosed to his COM which was a requirement. The Recall[37]The Applicant's recall occurred in circumstances where he had been in a vehicle and a drug deal had been observed by the police taking place around the vehicle. The Applicant on seeing the police ran away. Later the Applicants mobile telephone and a knife were found in a car associated with the Applicant. The Applicant explained that he had been given a lift in the car to see a friend but that unbeknown to him the person giving the lift had stopped to complete a drug deal.[38]In an earlier account the Applicant had given a different account of the drug deal. He had said that a resident at the probation hostel had intended to buy drugs and expected problems and that therefore asked the Applicant to accompany him as "backup". The Applicant had accepted that this was a poor decision and said that he had panicked when the police arrived. The Applicant also acknowledged that after this incident he had tried to source heroin to help him "calm down". He was eventually able to secure some crack cocaine which he smoked. He then returned to the probation premises where he was living. He was tested and eventually a positive test for cocaine was returned. The test was also positive for other drugs both prescribed and nonprescribed.[39]The panel assessed the evidence relating to the incident concerning the potential drug deal and the police involvement. The panel decided that it could not make findings of fact that the Applicant was specifically trying to complete a drug deal when travelling in the motor vehicle. However, the panel did find is a matter of fact that the Applicant had associated with a person who had problems with other associates and with drugs and that the association was highly likely to result in a negative outcome.[40]The panel's overall assessment of this incident and the earlier reports of behaviour was that the Applicant was taking little responsibility for his failures and that his actions evidenced a significant lack of insight. He was associating with people who he knew might be involved in negative behaviour. He had involved himself in a very risky situation given the fact that he was on licence. The panel also concluded that because the Applicant had a reputation, he may have found himself under pressure to become involved in any conflict that might have occurred.[41]Overall, the panel considered that the recall incident was significant and demonstrated a rapidly escalating risk in the community. The panel considered that the Applicant was not able to manage himself safely, was associating with antisocial peers, was engaging in potentially problematic associations with women, was acting impulsively and was not transparent with his exchanges with professionals about what he was doing with his life. He also sought out and took class A drugs , the panel noting that the index offence had a background of misusing illicit drugs. Post recall[42]The panel also noted that following his recall to prison there had been two incidents of cocaine use in prison.[43]On a positive note the Applicant had, in March 2025, engaged in 11 sessions of psychology work within the prison. He also completed one-to-one work with his COM regarding healthy relationships and disclosure of relationships. It was reported that the Applicant appeared to have a better understanding of healthy relationships and the need to report relationships.[44]Turning to the Applicant's ground for applying for reconsideration, as noted above the application for reconsideration engages the case of Wells and whether or not the panel had both clearly explained the reasons for rejecting a direction for release and whether those reasons justified the conclusion.[45]As noted above the panel's view of the incidents on licence was that they demonstrated an escalating and serious increase in the level of risk. The panel concluded that the Applicant had made poor decisions, lacked insight, began associating with antisocial peers, had engaged with problematic women and had shown a lack of ability to be open and honest with professionals. The panel also concluded that the Applicant had little insight and little understanding that what he was doing was potentially risky and wrong.[46]The panel also reflected upon the work that the Applicant had undertaken while in prison since recall. The panel had some scepticism as to whether the Applicant would actually use the skills that had been offered to him. The Applicant had told the panel that his main skill was walking away from risky situations. However, the panel acknowledged that this was not a skill which appeared to be used by the Applicant in the past and the panel doubted that he would do so in the future. The panel also recorded the reasons why they rejected the views and recommendations of professionals.[47]The panel took the view that: · The professionals had underestimated the seriousness of the recall incident and its impact upon risk. · That unlike the professionals the panel took the view that the Applicant lacked any real insight into his negative behaviour and prefer to deflect blame · That there was insufficient evidence available to the panel that the Applicant would act any differently in the future. · That the Applicant himself accepted that although he had undertaken a one-to-one refresher programme he said he had learnt nothing new - other than the technique of walking away.[48]As indicated above the panel's decision will be likely to be irrational unless they explain their reasons and justify that reason with credible evidence. The panel, in my determination, clearly explained their reasons for resiling from the views of the professionals. The role of the panel is to take a holistic view of all the evidence. The panel had the advantage of an extensive dossier of reports and other material. They had the advantage too, of seeing and hearing the applicant as well as the witnesses. Where a panel arrives at a conclusion, exercising its judgement based on the evidence before it and having regard to the fact that they saw and heard the witnesses, it would not be appropriate to direct that the decision be reconsidered unless it is manifestly obvious that there are compelling reasons for interfering with the decision of the panel or if the panel have failed to explain their rationale for rejecting the views of professionals. The reconsideration mechanism is not a process whereby the judgement of the panel when assessing risk can be lightly interfered with, nor is it a mechanism where I should be expected to substitute my view of the facts and evidence as found by the panel unless of course it is manifestly obvious that there was an error of an egregious nature which can be shown to have directly contributed to the conclusion arrived at by the panel. In all the circumstances, in my determination, this is not a case for reconsideration. The panel fully explained its reasons for rejecting the views of the professionals. That explanation is credible and based upon evidence referenced by the panel in the decision and therefore fulfils the requirements of the case of Wells as set out above. Decision[49]For the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the decision was irrational or procedurally unfair and accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused. HH S Dawson 28 January 2026