Gomersall, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 34 (09 February 2026) [2026] PBRA 34
[1]This is an application by Gomersall ("the Applicant") for reconsideration of a decision of a Panel of the Parole Board ("the Panel"), at an oral hearing which took place on 8 January 2026, 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: a) The dossier provided by the Secretary of State ("the Respondent") which now contains 595 numbered pages; b) The Panel's decision dated 15 January 2026; c) The application for Reconsideration ("the application") made by solicitors on behalf of the Applicant. Request for Reconsideration[4]The application is dated 19 January 2026.[5]Reconsideration is said to be sought on the basis of procedural unfairness which I will consider within the Discussion section of my decision. Background[6]The Applicant is now aged 46. On 16 August 2006 he received sentences of life imprisonment for two offences of rape against a male over 16. The minimum term was set at six years less time spent on remand in custody and the tariff expiry date was in August 2011. On the same occasion he received determinate sentences of imprisonment for offences of indecent assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH).[7]The sexual offences were committed against separate victims on separate occasions in two different prisons whilst the Applicant was serving a four year sentence of imprisonment for burglary. The offence of ABH was committed against a prison officer.[8]The Applicant has a lengthy criminal record of previous convictions for violence and acquisitive and anti-social offending with a history of poor compliance.[9]The Applicant has been transferred to open prison conditions on three occasions but each time it has been necessary to return him to the closed estate. He was initially released on licence in October 2018 and was returned to prison the following month when he failed to return to Approved Premises (AP) for his curfew. He was released again in October 2021 and returned to prison in December 2021 due to an accumulation of poor behaviour including drug misuse. Current parole review[10]The Applicant's case was referred to the Parole Board by the Respondent in March 2024 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 was the second review following his more recent 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 psychiatrist 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) A Community Offender Manager (COM); c) The Applicant; d) A Psychologist instructed by HMPPS (the psychologist).[14]None of the professional witnesses recommended a direction for release. The Relevant Law[15]The Panel correctly sets out the test for release in its decision.[16]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[17]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.[18]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.[19]The overriding objective is to ensure that the Applicant's case was dealt with justly. Reconsideration as a discretionary remedy[20]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[21]By letter dated 22 January 2026 PPCS on behalf of the Respondent provided representations in response to the application . Discussion[22]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.[23]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.[24]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.[25]In support of the application, the solicitor for the Applicant (who represented him at the hearing) refers to the Executive Summary of the meeting of MAPPA (Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements) held to consider the Applicant's case on 17 December 2025 which, it is common ground, were added to the dossier on the morning of the hearing.[26]The application suggests that this summary includes "Material of central importance to the Panel's determination" and accordingly, the solicitor submits, "Because the minutes were provided only on the day, we had no meaningful opportunity to: 1. Obtain instructions from [the Applicant] about the content of the minutes. 2. Query or challenge the accuracy of MAPPA's risk escalation. 3. Seek clarification from the MAPPA Chair or AP Manager. 4. Make an informed application for an adjournment ."[27]I have carefully considered the dossier and note that as early as 17 September 2025 it was known that the MAPPA meeting had been scheduled for 17 December 2025.[28]The final COM report is dated 24 December 2025 and, presumably, was added to the dossier prior to the hearing on 8 January 2026.[29]Helpfully, the report provides details of a meeting between professionals and the Applicant, which took place via videolink on 19 December 2025 following the MAPPA meeting, as (in part) follows, "This meeting was not productive and [the Applicant] displayed his disinterest in the information from the outset. [A COM] outlined the discussion held in the MAPPA meeting and the follow on conversation with [proposed Approved Premises (AP) manager]. It was made clear that the resettlement plan outlined was for [the Applicant] to be released to [the AP] and that there would be very specific restrictions in place for this placement. [The Applicant] was unhappy with this, and states he feels this plan does not make him feel safe. He reports he will not support his own release to [a specified county] even though we confirmed this is the only option available to him. "[The Applicant] was extremely argumentative and hostile throughout the meeting, both towards COM and POM...and entirely disputes that his risk level should be assessed as Very High. He continues to show no understanding of the risk he poses and believes us to be setting him up to fail... "We discussed our recommendation of a PIPE in custody which he still refuses to consider ."[30]The COM then goes on, in the same report, to provide an outline of the MAPPA meeting and the issues discussed, in particular, the question of an appropriate release address for the Applicant, the licence conditions proposed to manage his risk in the community and to confirm that the Applicant's risk needed to be increased to Very High and the reasons for this.[31]The COM also provides an account of the subsequent discussions with the manager of the proposed AP and the stringent risk management conditions which would be necessary if the Applicant were to be placed there, with the COM concluding, " In my opinion, this is the only adequate risk management plan that we can consider and enables [the Applicant] to be safely transferred into the community to begin his resettlement period."[32]I find that this report covers the issues in relation to which the solicitor suggests that she had no opportunity to take meaningful instructions from the Applicant.[33]In its conclusion the Panel sets out a number of factors upon which it placed weight when coming to its decision not to direct the Applicant's release, the majority of which are foreshadowed in the documentation which had been included in the dossier in advance of the oral hearing, while, as to the proposed release address and the Panel's finding that the revised assessment of risk to Very High was reliable, I find that both these issues had been (as far as possible given his reported attitude) communicated to, and discussed with, the Applicant two days after the MAPPA meeting and I note that the solicitor was in a position to make detailed submissions about the assessment of risk in her written closing arguments of 12 January 2026.[34]I find that I can deal with this application shortly. If, despite my analysis set out above, the Applicant's solicitor, on the morning of the oral hearing, was of the view that she had had no meaningful opportunity to take full instructions and to address the issues she now raises and that, as she avers, " the late introduction of the minutes deprived the prisoner of a fair chance to understand and respond to material", it was incumbent upon her and she was duty bound to make her position clear to the Panel and to seek either further time on the day or an adjournment of the hearing in order to fully consider these issues with him. There is no indication in the decision, her written submissions made after the conclusion of the hearing or in this application that she did any of these things.[35]Indeed, there is no indication in the solicitor's closing submissions that she had any complaint to make about the manner in which the hearing had been conducted. In particular, it is not submitted as part of this application that the COM report of 24 December 2025 was not available either to the Applicant or his solicitor prior to 8 January or that she did not have sufficient time to consider this with her client prior to the hearing.[36]It has to be assumed therefore that, when the hearing commenced, the professional judgement of the Applicant's solicitor was that she was able properly to represent the Applicant's interests and that an adjournment was unnecessary in order to fulfil her professional duties to him.[37]Accordingly, in the absence of any application for an adjournment or any apparent suggestion on the day of the hearing or in subsequent closing submissions that the Panel were proceeding in a procedurally unfair manner, I find that this application fails to disclose any procedural unfairness and, upon careful consideration of the application, I am satisfied that the Applicant is unable to put before me any matters or arguments which would justify a direction for reconsideration. Decision[38]Accordingly, I find that the Application is entirely 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 09 February 2026