Taylor, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 39 (19 February 2026) [2026] PBRA 39

PBRA
Taylor, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 39 (19 February 2026)
[2026] PBRA 39 · 2026-01-10
[1]This is an application by Taylor (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of an oral hearing panel dated the 10 January 2026; the decision 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 representations applying for reconsideration drafted by the Applicant's legal adviser, and the response by the Secretary of State (the Respondent). Request for Reconsideration[4]The application for reconsideration is dated 31 January 2026.[5]The grounds for seeking a reconsideration are set out below. Background[6]The Applicant is serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection following his conviction for rape of a female child under 13, false imprisonment, attempted rape of a female child under 13 x2 and sexual assault of a female child under 13. He was sentenced on 24 February 2012. His tariff expired on 24 February 2017. The Applicant was aged 46 when sentenced, and he was aged 60 at the time of the oral hearing. The Applicant had been released in September 2021 and recalled in June 2023. The hearing was the Applicant's second review since his recall. The Applicant was in an open prison at the time of the oral hearing.[7]The referral by the Respondent requested that the Parole Board consider whether the Applicant should be subject to a direction for release.[8]The index offences were committed in 2011 when the Applicant was subject to earlier licence conditions relating to offending. The details of the index offence were that the Applicant ingratiated himself with a family. The Applicant did not disclose his earlier sexually related offending. On one occasion whilst at the home of the family the Applicant offered to take the family's eight year old daughter to buy sweets. He in fact took the child to his flat and sexually abused the child. The Applicant disclosed his behaviour to an associate who informed the police. The victim informed the police that the Applicant had sexually abused her. She had suffered oral penetration and attempts at anal and vaginal penetration as well as being detained at the Applicant's accommodation.[9]The Applicant had committed sexual offences prior to the index offence. In 1988 he was convicted of indecent assault on a girl under 14 (the child was aged 5), and in 2002 he was convicted of indecent assault (the victim was an adult). In 2007 he was convicted of an offence of kidnap with intent to commit a sexual offence relating to a 10 year old male.[10]The Applicant's recall occurred in circumstances where his mobile phone was inspected. He was found to have attempted to access a VPN (virtual private network). He had also clicked onto links of children's underwear as noted below. He had additionally failed a polygraph test in the sense that it was discovered that he had met up with a sex offender which was a breach of his licence conditions. Current parole review[11]The oral hearing panel consisted of an independent chair of the Parole Board, a psychologist member of the Parole Board and a further independent member of the Parole Board. Evidence was given at the oral hearing by a Community Offender Manager (COM), a Prison Offender Manager (POM), and a prison instructed psychologist. The Applicant was legally represented throughout. The Applicant also gave evidence. A dossier was considered. The Relevant Law[12]The panel correctly sets out in its decision the test for release. Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)[13]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)).[14]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[15]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.[16]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. "
[17]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).[18]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.[19]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.[20]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[24]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.[25]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[26]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[27]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[28]The Respondent offered no representations. Grounds and Discussion Ground 1[29]It is submitted by the Applicant's legal adviser that the panel acted irrationally in failing to follow the recommendations of all three professional witnesses, namely the POM, COM and prison instructed psychologist. Discussion[30]The Applicant's legal adviser indicates that the panel's rejection of the recommendations of the professional witnesses was primarily based upon the fact that the Applicant had given evidence, during the course of the hearing, regarding his sexual thoughts and in particular the sequence of incidents which led to the Applicant's recall.[31]The factual background was that the Applicant's mobile phone had been inspected while he was in the community and before recall. That inspection revealed that the Applicant had been searching sites relating to underwear.[32]In giving evidence, at the panel hearing, the Applicant was asked about the searches. The Applicant told the panel that he had been initially looking at male underwear for himself. He then accessed images of female underwear which he told the panel was accompanied by fantasising about women dressed in underwear. He emphasised that these were adult fantasies.[33]He then told the panel that he had scrolled down on the particular site and encountered images of children's underwear. He then viewed these images for approximately 10 minutes. He told the panel that although he viewed the images of children's underwear, he had not been aroused by them as the underwear was not being worn by a child. He accepted however that he should not have been viewing such images.[34]The concern of the panel was that the sequence of viewing adult underwear followed by spending some time viewing children's underwear was not a sequence which had been disclosed (to professionals) before the panel hearing itself. The Applicant said that he had recorded the incidents in a diary, however the diary had not been shown to any professionals.[35]The relevance of this sequence of events was that the Applicant's history of abusing female children was reportedly associated with the fascination about underwear. The panel's concern was that, despite being on licence, and subject to fairly rigorous external controls, the Applicant appeared to allow himself to drift into material which was associated with his highly risky sexual fantasies concerning children.[36]The view of the Applicant himself was that this lapse was "complacency" . The views of the professionals were that these were not lapses serious enough to warrant his further detention.[37]The prison commissioned psychologist had taken the view that the lapse relating to viewing children's underwear was attributable to (as suggested by the Applicant) "complacency" rather than imminent risk escalation. The psychologist conceded that the accessing and viewing of children's underwear could increase risk, however the psychologist took the view that there would be sufficient available warning signs (in the community) to detect and observe any rapid escalation in risk. The psychologist took the view that despite the added evidence adduced at the hearing, the recommendation (that the Applicant should be released) was unaffected. The view of the psychologist was that despite the further revelations in the hearing, the Applicant's risk could be safely managed in the community.[38]A similar view was taken by the Applicant's COM and POM. The Applicant's COM confirmed that the Applicant had not disclosed the fantasies associated with women's underwear and the subsequent link to children's underwear. In evidence to the panel, the COM suggested that the failure by the Applicant to disclose this sequence of events may have been attributable to the COM herself not addressing this issue with directed questioning, rather than attributable to any dishonesty or deliberate avoidance on the part of the Applicant.[39]The panel placed considerable emphasis upon the evidence relating to the association between accessing adult women's underwear and the link to accessing children's underwear in terms of sexual fantasising. The panel expressed concern about the fact that the link between women's underwear and children's underwear had not been disclosed (by the Applicant) prior to the panel hearing itself and considered the omission to be significant.[40]The panel took the view that this undermined the views of the professionals that the Applicant's deviant sexual thoughts and behaviour are well managed and that internal controls would be effective in managing risk in the community.[41]The panel disagreed and took the view that the connection between sexual arousal, sexual fantasy, and the subsequent viewing of children's underwear raised acute concern. It suggested to the panel that this was not merely a lapse in judgement or mistake relating to scrolling, but a continuation of historical sexual preoccupation and a potential pathway to risk associated with the index offending. The panel took the view that the disclosures amounted to a substantive failure in the Applicant's insight, as well as challenging his ability to self-manage and be open with professionals. In the view of the panel the incident called into question the reliability of the Applicant's ability to self-report, and more generally the reliance upon self-report to manage risk in the future.[42]In addition to concerns about disclosure, the panel took the view that the Applicant's explanation of how he came to be viewing children's underwear lacked credibility.[43]The Applicant's legal adviser argues that the panel's conclusions relating to this aspect of the panel hearing were unsupported by evidence and therefore irrational.[44]As noted above there was a clear difference of view between the panel and the professionals about the background to the Applicant's behaviour which led to his recall.[45]This was clearly a case where there was a difference in view about the adduced evidence. The panel were entitled to consider the evidence independently of the views of the professionals. As is well understood, 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. 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 by the divisional Court in DSD they have the expertise to do it. I am not persuaded in this case that there was an absence of evidence upon which the panel could reach their conclusion. As noted above there was a difference of opinion as to the interpretation of the evidence relating to accessing images of adult and children's underwear. This was a significant factor in the light of the fact that the Applicant had a history of abusing female children and a significant part of that history was his interest in underwear worn by young children. There was therefore an understandable link suggested by the panel between the behaviour which led to the recall, the risks associated with that behaviour, and the risks associated with a reluctance to fully disclose (until pressed at the panel hearing itself). In the circumstances therefore I do not find that the panel were irrational in reaching their conclusion relating to this ground. Ground 2[46]It is submitted by the Applicant's legal adviser, on behalf of the Applicant, that the panel reached a 'speculative' conclusion relating to the explanation given by the Applicant about how he came to be viewing children's underwear. It is submitted that in the light of the complications of online algorithms and advertising the explanation by the Applicant that the images of children's underwear appeared as part of a routine search was in fact a plausible explanation. Discussion[47]It is submitted that the panel failed to deal with this aspect of concern in an appropriate manner, in particular that the panel failed to undertake further fact-finding with the Applicant about how he came upon the images of children's underwear and failed to reflect upon the complexities of algorithms in search engines. Having considered the decision in this case it is clear that the panel were sceptical about the Applicant's explanation of how he came to be looking at images of children's underwear. This scepticism was understandable in the light of the Applicant's risks and the fact that he had undertaken a number of behavioural interventions which would have alerted him to the negative aspects of online search activity. The Applicant also admitted that he had spent some time observing the children's underwear, once he had opened the website pages.[48]A Parole Board panel is clearly permitted to take account of its knowledge of the world in general terms. The panel itself indicated that it had been cautious not to appear to undertake a detailed technical investigation, however in my determination the panel acted within the bounds of acceptable evidential analysis in their conclusion that the Applicant's account of chancing upon depictions of children's underwear had some limitations in terms of credibility. I am not therefore persuaded, as suggested by the Applicant's legal adviser, that the views of the panel went beyond the proper bounds of assessing the evidence presented at the hearing. Ground 3[49]It is submitted by the Applicant's legal adviser that the panel relied too heavily upon the offence history, it failed to identify the Applicant's current risk, and to take account of the argument that external controls would effectively manage his risk. Discussion[50]This was a case where the offence history was of crucial importance. The Applicant had a history of abusive sexually motivated behaviour towards children and to an extent towards adults. The Applicant himself candidly admitted that his interest in young females was unlikely ever to completely disappear. The panel were clearly obliged to assess the Applicant's risk on the basis of his historical sexual interest in children. It was clear that the Applicant had progressed in terms of understanding his own risks and in being more open and honest with professionals. However, the Applicant was a manipulative individual and had shown an ability to manage those around him to his own benefit. The panel appropriately took account of these factors in the Applicant's personality when making a judgement. The panel's final analysis was that, at the time of the panel hearing, there remained issues particularly relating to the Applicant's internal controls. Clearly progress had been made, but at the point of the hearing, the panel concluded that the risk of serious harm remained at a level which could not be safely managed in the community. I am not persuaded that this ground amounts to an argument for reconsideration as defined above. Ground 4[51]It is submitted by the Applicant's legal adviser that the panel failed to give the Applicant sufficient opportunity to address the issues about which they were concerned, in particular, his explanations of how he came to be accessing depictions of children's underwear, his lack of insight and his apparent "shifted narratives" when giving evidence and explanations. Discussion[52]A reading of the written decision by the panel clearly indicates that the Applicant was asked by the panel about the issues relating to risk. A fundamental aspect of a parole panel hearing is that the Applicant must be given a full opportunity to state his position and case. The concerns of the panel were clearly raised with the Applicant as well as with professionals. I am not persuaded that the Applicant was prevented from addressing the issues which clearly arose in this case. The Applicant was also legally represented which would give an opportunity to address issues arising in the course of the hearing.[53]The Applicant's legal adviser argues that "adverse credibility findings must be put to a party before being relied upon." I am not persuaded that this is a reflection of the process of the panel hearing. In my determination where an issue arises the panel must as a matter of procedural fairness give the prisoner the opportunity to challenge or explain the relevant evidence or information. The panel's role is then to consider all evidence and reach a conclusion upon that evidence. I am not persuaded that the panel is obliged to make findings and then put those findings back to the prisoner for further comment or challenge. A panel of the Parole Board conducts a partially adversarial and partially inquisitorial hearing format. In my determination (as illustrated in the case of R(Pearce and another) 2023 UKSC 13 ) the panel are obliged to ensure that the prisoner has a full opportunity to address the issues and concerns relating to alleged risky conduct. The panel's role is then to make an assessment of the evidence holistically and to reach a conclusion upon that evidence. I am not therefore persuaded that the panel's procedure was unfair in this case. Ground 5[54]It is submitted that one of the topics upon which the panel relied, namely the fact that the Applicant had not fully revealed the circumstances of accessing a website relating to children's underwear, was treated unfairly by the panel as it should have been specifically raised by the panel and put to all witnesses and the Applicant. Discussion[55]This point appears to be close to the point argued in the fourth ground, namely that the panel's conclusions should have been put back to all parties to elicit further comment. Again, I am not persuaded that this approach is sustainable. The role of the Parole Board panel is to elicit information based upon the contents of the dossier and to investigate with the Applicant and the witnesses' areas of concern, particularly around risk. All parties in this case were given the opportunity to address the issues within the dossier. The panel were entitled and indeed obliged to take account of the evidence adduced and reach conclusions. As indicated above, I am not persuaded that the panel's duty was to reach conclusions and present those conclusions back to the parties and the Applicant for further debate. Ground 6[56]It is submitted by the Applicant's legal adviser that the panel were critical of professionals because they appeared to assume responsibility for the Applicant's failure to fully disclose issues relating to the website material, the COM attributing the failure to not asking the Applicant the "right questions." Discussion[57]This submission appears to arise in connection with a paragraph of the panel's decision (4.6) where the panel indicated that one of their concerns relating to the evidence of the Applicant was his failure to disclose, to professionals, behaviour relevant to risk. The panel addressed comments made by the professionals in the hearing itself, in particular by the COM, who suggested that the failure to disclose the relevant material may have arisen because the COM had not asked the "right questions." In essence the COM seems to be taking responsibility for the absence of disclosure of the risk related issues concerning accessing material online. The COM suggested that she should have asked more questions or questions in more detail about the fantasies and sexual thoughts which might have been associated with the accessing of depictions of children's underwear online.[58]The panel's assessment of this evidence was that they rejected the assertion by the COM that the fault for omitting this material in supervision lay at the door of the COM, and the supervision by the COM. The point being made by the panel was that the responsibility for disclosure of issues such as sexual thoughts and fantasies lay entirely with the Applicant. The panel's view was that part of the essence of insight and self-management lay in the ability and willingness to disclose issues such as these to professionals. The panel's point was that risk management could not rely upon the potential for sufficiently probing questions, in the absence of open and honest disclosure by the Applicant. This issue went to the heart of the question of insight and self-management and the need for the Applicant to have sufficient internal controls to manage his obvious risks and a willingness to be fully open and honest about sexual thoughts and areas of risk. Again, therefore, I am not persuaded that this argument engages reconsideration. The panel were concerned about the inability or unwillingness of the Applicant to be open and honest in his disclosures about fantasy-related sexual behaviour associated with children. Openness and honesty was essential in ongoing management of this Applicant's risk. The burden lay with the Applicant to be open and honest, rather than upon a hope that the professionals would frame appropriate questions. Ground 7[59]It is submitted by the Applicant's legal adviser that the panel failed to appropriately apply the public protection test. The Applicant's legal adviser then lists the issues which it is argued were not appropriately addressed by the panel and therefore amount to an error of law. The issues being focusing on historical behaviour; failing to assess current risk factors; failing to accept that the recall behaviour had been subject to previous professional analysis; taking account of information which had emerged at the hearing as relevant to risk escalation; failing to give credence to the fact that the Applicant had reported the viewing of children's underwear in his diary; failing to consider that the Applicant had undertaken work relating to risk when in a closed prison; failing to acknowledge that no further risk related behaviour had been reported while the Applicant was in an open prison; and finally failing to take account of the views of professionals who took the view that risk could be managed in the community. Discussion[60]I have considered the scheduled complaints above, submitted to be errors of law, by the Applicant's legal adviser. Some are dealt with in terms of earlier submissions, in particular the issue of focusing upon historic behaviour and assessing current risk factors. As indicated in earlier discussion, I am not persuaded that this was a case where historic behaviour could be considered irrelevant. The Applicant's ongoing risk relating to a sexual interest in children was a current factor based upon a lengthy history of abuse relating to children.[61]The Applicant's legal adviser complains that the panel acted improperly in taking account of evidence which had been adduced at the panel hearing (and which had not been available until the panel hearing), which related to the incident which led to the Applicant's recall. With respect to the Applicant's legal adviser, the purpose of an oral hearing is to allow all parties and importantly the Applicant to address the issues which are of relevance and importance in connection with risk. In this case the Applicant adduced important and fresh evidence about the circumstances which led to his recall. The panel, in my determination, were entitled to take account of the Applicant's evidence even if it was to his detriment. The fundamental issue was whether the Applicant was able to manage his sexual interest in children (which included their underwear) or whether there remained a risk in this domain. The evidence adduced at the hearing clearly led the panel to conclude that the risk to children remained and that therefore the statutory test had not been met.[62]It is also of note that the Applicant's legal adviser strongly argued for an oral hearing at the preliminary stages of this case. It was argued that "an oral hearing would be the most fair and appropriate way of assessing [the Applicant's] risk."[63]In my determination the panel appropriately addressed issues which were clearly evident in the dossier, and which had been identified over a number of years. The Applicant had an entrenched sexual interest in female children. He also had an associated interest in the underwear of female children. He had also been deceitful and manipulative when committing offences. He was a man who was capable of impression management and of exerting control over situations and people to his own benefit. In my determination the Applicant's background and personality were crucial factors in reaching an assessment on risk. The run-up to the index offence had been short lived and committed while the Applicant was subject to a licence. The panel were entitled to approach the issue of internal controls, honesty, and openness with some caution given the Applicant's background.[64]The panel acknowledged that the Applicant had been in an open prison and that there have been no adverse incidents. The panel also acknowledged that the Applicant had undertaken accredited offending behaviour work.[65]It is clear in their overall assessment that the panel took account of the issues submitted by the Applicant's legal adviser as being "errors of law." In my determination an overall reading of the panel's decision indicates that the panel took careful note of the positive factors and weighed with care the evidential issues in this case. The panel had the advantage of the dossier and reports and other material. They also had the advantage of seeing and hearing the Applicant as well as the witnesses. Where a panel arrives at a conclusion, exercising its judgement based upon the evidence before it and having regard to the fact that they saw and heard the witnesses, it will be inappropriate to direct that the decision be reconsidered unless it is manifestly obvious that there are compelling reasons for interfering with the findings and evaluation by the panel. I am not persuaded that this ground amounts to a basis for reconsideration as argued by the Applicant's legal adviser. Ground 8[66]It is submitted on behalf of the Applicant that the panel failed to consider "proportionality." Specifically, it is submitted that the panel failed to consider the fact that the Applicant was tariff expired and had been for nine years. He had demonstrated positive behaviour in open conditions. and there had been universal professional support for his release. Discussion[67]It is appropriate for the Applicant's legal adviser to raise the issue of the Applicant's tariff, the views of professionals and good behaviour in the open prison. The overriding consideration for the panel was public safety. In my determination having considered the detailed decision, I am satisfied that the panel applied anxious scrutiny to the overall decision in this case. However, as set out above, the panel indicated that they were not confident that the Applicant was either able or possibly willing to disclose risk relevant sexual thinking fully and promptly, or that he could manage sexual preoccupation without the risk of escalation, or that he could be relied upon in the longer term to abide by licence conditions. These were clearly all fundamental issues which impacted directly upon the statutory test for release. I am not persuaded that the panel acted with disproportionality in their approach to their decision, and therefore I am not persuaded that this ground amounts to a basis for reconsideration. Decision[68]For the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the decision was irrational or procedurally unfair, or contains an error of law, and accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused. HH S Dawson 19 February 2026