Young, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 30 (30 January 2026) [2026] PBRA 30
[1]This is an application by Young ("the Applicant") for reconsideration of a decision of a Panel of the Parole Board ("the Panel"), at an oral hearing which took place on 27 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 dossier provided by the Secretary of State ("the Respondent") which now contains 1034 numbered pages; · The Panel's decision dated 16 December 2025; · The application for reconsideration ("the application") by the Applicant. Request for Reconsideration[4]The application is dated 28 December 2025.[5]Reconsideration is said to be sought on the basis of procedural unfairness in reliance upon a variety of grounds which I will consider within the Discussion section of my decision. Background[6]The Applicant is now aged 40. On 3 July 2009, at the age of 23 and upon his guilty pleas, he received a sentence of imprisonment for public protection for an offence of sexual assault by penetration The minimum term was set at 3 years and 4 months less time spent on remand in custody and the sentence expiry date was in May 2012. On the same occasion he was sentenced to determinate sentences of imprisonment to be served consecutively for offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and failure to comply with his notification requirements as a sex offender.[7]The Applicant was in a relationship with the victim and the offences were committed over a period of time in the context of his heavy drinking and use of sexual violence for his own gratification .[8]The Applicant had previously been sentenced in June 2004 to five years detention in a Young Offender Institution for an offence of attempted rape.[9]The Applicant was initially released on licence in July 2017 but was recalled to prison 18 days later due to his persistent substance misuse which was assessed to increase his risk of sexual and violent offending. He, subsequently, progressed to open prison conditions in September 2018 but returned to the closed estate in December 2018, again because of drug misuse. Current parole review[10]The Applicant's case was referred to the Parole Board by the Respondent in January 2022 to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to direct his release or, in the alternative, that he be transferred to open prison conditions. This is his fourth review since his recall to prison.[11]The case was allocated to a three-person Panel which comprised two independent members, one of whom chaired the Panel, and a psychologist member.[12]The Applicant was represented by his solicitor who sought a direction for release.[13]At the hearing evidence was given by: a) The Prison Offender Manager (POM); b) The Community Offender Manager (COM); c) The Applicant; d) A psychologist instructed by HMPPS (the psychologist). The Relevant Law[14]The Panel correctly sets out the test for release in its decision.[15]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)). Procedural unfairness[16]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.[17]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.[18]The overriding objective is to ensure that the applicant's case was dealt with justly. Reconsideration as a discretionary remedy[19]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[20]By letter dated 16 January 2026 PPCS on behalf of the Respondent provided representations in response to the application which I will refer to in the Discussion section of my decision. Discussion[21]In dealing with the grounds for reconsideration, it is necessary to stress certain matters of basic importance. The first is that the Reconsideration Mechanism is not a process by which the judgement of the Panel when assessing risk can be lightly interfered with. Nor is it a mechanism in which the member carrying out the reconsideration is entitled to substitute his/her view of the facts in place of those found by the Panel, unless, of course, it is manifestly obvious that there was an error of fact of an egregious nature which can be shown to have directly contributed to the conclusion arrived at by the Panel.[22]The second matter of material importance is that when deciding whether a decision of the Parole Board was irrational, due deference has to be given to the expertise of the Parole Board in making decisions relating to parole.[23]Finally, where a panel arrives at a conclusion, exercising its judgement based on the evidence before it and having regard to the fact they saw and heard the witnesses, it would be inappropriate 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.[24]The Applicant's submissions appear to have been submitted without the benefit of legal advice or assistance. For the most part, they involve criticisms of the solicitors who acted for him in relation to the review and at the oral hearing. These are not failings which can be attributed to the Panel.[25]The Applicant also refers to "factual errors" but does not specify what these were.[26]The Applicant complains that he only received the hearing dossier from the POM two or three weeks before the hearing " not giving me enough time to prepare, so therefore did not have a full dossier with relevant information to fight my case." However, the Respondent has been informed by the POM that the dossier was provided to the Applicant as early as April 2025, that it was kept updated and that he signed confirmations of receipt for these documents.[27]The Applicant also suggests that he has for some time asked for assistance with his mental health issues, but none has been provided. This, again, would not appear to raise the issue of procedural unfairness but, in deference to the assistance provided by the Respondent, I note that the POM now confirms that the Applicant has had " significant and continuous engagement" via appropriate mental health processes in the prison throughout 2024 and 2025 and that " his well-being was regularly monitored and reviewed" by relevant staff members. Details of these interventions have also been provided and would appear to be confirmed in the Panel's decision (paras. 2.20 and 2.21).[28]The Applicant also refers to incorrect and inaccurate entries in prison internal records but does not provide any specific details.[29]The Applicant concludes by making what amount to further submissions in support of his application for release.[30]It is understandable that the Applicant is disappointed by the outcome of his parole review but it is clear that the Panel gave careful consideration to the large amount of written evidence which was before it together with the oral evidence of the Applicant himself as well as the professional witnesses, none of whom supported his application for release.[31]Put shortly, while acknowledging periods of good behaviour and positive engagement on the part of the Applicant, the Panel found these were "greatly outweighed" by long periods of negative behaviour, including persistent drug-misuse, self-harm and aggression. The Panel also found that the Applicant had indulged in risky relationship-seeking behaviour with female staff in custody which involved him in making consistently poor risk-management decisions.[32]In addition, the Panel found that the Applicant had failed to take advantage of a number of opportunities for progression, that his behaviours had demonstrated a number of his key risk factors, that his risks were currently unmanageable in the community and that it remained necessary for the protection of the public that he continued to be confined.[33]Upon careful consideration of the application, I find that the Applicant is unable to put before me any matters or arguments which could substantiate a finding that there has been any procedural unfairness in this case which would justify a direction for reconsideration. Decision[34]Accordingly, I find that the Application is without merit and, for the reasons I have given and applying the appropriate tests, I do not consider that the decision was procedurally unfair and the application for reconsideration is, therefore, refused. PETER H. F JONES 30 January 2026