Beech, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 40 (17 February 2026) [2026] PBRA 40

PBRA
Beech, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 40 (17 February 2026)
[2026] PBRA 40 · 2026-01-11
[1]This is an application by Beech (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of an oral hearing panel dated the 11 January 2026. The decision of the oral hearing 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 decision of the oral hearing panel, the representations by the Applicant for reconsideration and the representations from the Secretary of State (the Respondent). Request for Reconsideration[4]The application for reconsideration is dated 3 February 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 (IPP). The Applicant was sentenced on 8 November 2007. The Applicant was 40 years old at the time of sentence. He was 59 years old at the time of the oral hearing. The index offences related to a large number of sexual offences committed in a familial environment. The offences were committed over a considerable period of time. The victims were children. The minimum period set by the judge in relation to the IPP sentence was 11 years and 6 months. The Applicant's tariff expired in November 2018. The Applicant was released on licence in September 2021 and recalled in December 2022. This was the Applicant's second review following his recall. Current parole review[7]The referral from the Respondent requested the Parole Board to consider whether the Applicant should be subject to a direction for release. If not directed for release, the Parole Board were asked to consider whether the Applicant should be subject to a recommendation for transfer to an open prison. The panel in this case did in fact recommend that the Applicant be transferred to an open prison.[8]The panel hearing took place on 6 January 2026. The Parole Board panel consisted of an independent chair, a further independent member, and a psychologist member. Evidence was received from a Prison Offender Manager (POM), a Community Offender Manager (COM), a prison commissioned psychologist and a prisoner commissioned psychologist. The panel considered a dossier. The Applicant gave evidence and was legally represented. The Relevant Law[9]The panel correctly sets out in its decision the test for release and the issues to be addressed in making a recommendation to the Secretary of State for a progressive move to open conditions. 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)). Decisions concerning the termination, amendment, or dismissal of an IPP licence are also eligible for reconsideration (rule 31(6) or rule 31(6A)).[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)).[12]A decision to recommend or not to recommend a move to open conditions is not eligible for reconsideration under rule 28. This has been confirmed by the decision on the previous reconsideration application in Barclay [2019] PBRA 6 . Irrationality[13]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.[14]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. "
[15]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).[16]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.[17]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.[18]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[22]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.[23]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. Transfer to Open Conditions[24]The test to be applied when considering the question of transfer to open conditions is the subject of a well-established line of authorities going back to R (Hill) v Parole Board [2011] EWHC 809 (Admin) and including R (Rowe) v Parole Board [2013] EWHC 3838 (Admin) , R (Hutt) v Parole Board [2018] EWHC 1041 (Admin) . The test for transfer to open conditions is different from the test for release on licence and the two decisions must be approached separately and the correct test applied in each case. The panel must identify the factors which have led it to make its decision. The four factors the panel must take into account when applying the test are: a) the progress of the prisoner in addressing and reducing their risk; b) the likeliness of the prisoner to comply with conditions of temporary release c) the likeliness of the prisoner absconding; and d) the benefit the prisoner is likely to derive from open conditions.[25]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. "
[26]Omitting to put information before a panel is not a ground for procedural unfairness, as has been confirmed in the decision on the previous reconsideration application in Williams [2019] PBRA 7 . This is the case even where the information, had it been before the panel, would have been capable of altering its decision, or prompting the panel to take other steps such as putting the case off for an oral hearing where the new information and its effect on any risk assessment could be examined. This is because procedural unfairness under the Rules relates to the making of the decision by the Parole Board, and when making the decision the panel considered all the evidence that was before them. There was nothing to indicate that further evidence was available or necessary, and so there was nothing to indicate that there was any procedural unfairness. 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 Background[29]As noted above the Applicant is serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection which was imposed after a trial in 2007. The offences were serious. The offending took place over a period of 20 years. The Applicant sexually offended against a number of victims who were children. The majority of the offending occurred in a familial environment, however one of the victims was a non-family member. The victims were vulnerable because of their young ages, and one victim had additional vulnerabilities. In total there were 29 counts of sexual offending against male and female children. The offences included rape, attempted rape, indecency with a child and indecent assault. The offences were described by the judge as " a catalogue of sexual abuse and depravity ". The judge indicated that the Applicant had exploited and corrupted the victims and displayed total indifference to their feelings and protests. The judge described the Applicant as " an evil predator".[30]The Applicant has consistently denied all the offending. The Applicant maintains that the complaints against him were made maliciously, orchestrated by a former partner.[31]The Applicant was released on licence in September 2021. In December 2022 he was recalled.[32]The recall occurred as a result of various concerns namely: a) That the Applicant was searching on the internet for swimwear for 12 year olds. The Applicant's explanation was that he had not searched but this was a "pop-up" . b) That he was searching the internet to seek how to delete internet history. c) That he had breached his trail monitoring licence condition by not charging the tag and his whereabouts were therefore not known for an eight hour period. The Applicant's explanation was that the tag was faulty and that he had been asleep when the tag disconnected. d) That he had agreed to draw a portrait of a pub landlord's grandchildren from a photograph which raised concerns about connections with children; the Applicant's explanation was that he did not understand that this would be a concern in relation to his licence. e) That he had agreed to act as a DJ for a pub landlord on New Year's Eve without disclosing this employment to his COM or disclosing his offending history to the employer. The Applicant's explanation was that he was helping the landlord at short notice and that he had ascertained that no persons under the age of 18 would be present at the venue. However, the licence condition was reporting any employment; the Applicant subsequently indicated that he felt that the licence condition had changed and had not been present on the list of conditions given to him initially. f) That he sent a friend request to one of the victims of the index offences on Facebook. g) That he had contact with two females via Facebook online and expressed his love for one of them. h) That he removed the function on his mobile phone which would save internet history which was against licence conditions. i) That he failed to be present at home for a home visit which was prearranged. j) That he was untruthful about making contact with a female on a particular weekend in November 2022. He initially indicated that he had not driven anywhere but later admitted that he had met a female and picked her up in his car. This meeting was apparently in relation to a potential swapping of his flat. He could provide no further details of the identity of the female or of the arrangement as he had deleted the arrangements from his mobile phone account.[33]The Applicant initially told professionals that he felt that he had been unfairly recalled, although he told the current panel that he now understood more clearly why he had been subject to a recall and accepted the decision.[34]The application for reconsideration was in a narrative format. I have attempted to summarise the grounds which are reflected in the narrative application. Ground 1[35]It is submitted by the Applicant that the panel failed to take proper account of the view of the evidence of the prisoner instructed psychologist in the panel hearing, the psychologist being a highly experienced psychologist and recommending release. Discussion[36]In this case two psychologists gave evidence, one instructed by the prison service and one by the Applicant's legal adviser on behalf of the Applicant. There were differing views as to whether the Applicant's risk could be safely managed in the community. The prison instructed psychologist and the Applicant's COM and POM were all of the view that the Applicant's risk could not be safely managed in the community and were not recommending release. All recommended a transfer to an open prison. The Applicant's instructed psychologist took a different view. The view of the Applicant's instructed psychologist was that the Applicant's risk could be safely managed in the community. There were lengthy reports from all professionals. The core issue in this case was the question of whether the Applicant's insight and relationship with professionals were sufficiently embedded to manage his risk of serious harm in the community. As noted above, in the schedule of issues relating to recall, the concern in this case was the fact that the Applicant, on a number of occasions, was in breach of his licence conditions. In the light of the Applicant's potential risk of harm to children, the view of the professionals was that compliance with licence conditions was fundamental to the management of the Applicant's risk in the community.[37]The rationale of the prisoner instructed psychologist was that the Applicant had complied with the prison regime, that there were no further accredited offending behaviour programmes for the Applicant to complete and that the Applicant had been able to cope with practical aspects of living in the community. The prisoner instructed psychologist took the view that the issues which led to recall were " minor breaches of licence conditions". The prisoner instructed psychologist suggested that these minor breaches of licence conditions were related to memory issues (a problem which had now been diagnosed) rather than intentional non-compliance.[38]The views of the prison instructed psychologist and other professionals was that the Applicant had not been open and honest when on licence and that it was necessary for him to be able to demonstrate that he could consistently be open and honest with professionals in the community. The concern was that a lack of compliance and openness and honesty clearly raised the potential for a risk of serious harm to children in the sense that the management of the Applicant's risk would be hampered by his propensity to breach licence conditions.[39]The panel agreed with the prison instructed psychologist and the professionals. Their assessment was that the Applicant's risk of harm was likely to escalate if his relationship with professionals broke down and therefore, he could not or would not access support. The relationship with, and supervision by, professionals would (in the panel's view) be crucial to guard against the development of risk related contacts and associations which might result in access to children. Openness and honesty were crucial factors in ensuring that those at risk were protected from serious harm.[40]The panel therefore rejected the view of the prisoner instructed psychologist that the breaches of licence conditions, which led to the recall, were insignificant.[41]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 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 by the divisional Court in DSD they have the expertise to do it.[42]However, if the panel rejects the view of a professional witness, it is important that it should explain clearly its reasons for doing so and that its stated reasons should be sufficient to justify its conclusions as per Wells above. In this case the panel explained the reason why they rejected the views of the prisoner instructed psychologist. The panel did not characterise the licence breaches which led to recall as being "minor breaches". The panel took the view that non-compliance generally was a concern in the community despite the fact that the Applicant was compliant within prison. For this reason, I do not find that this ground amounts to a basis for reconsideration. Ground 2[43]The Applicant submits that subsequent to the panel hearing he had a discussion with his COM. His COM indicated that after hearing the Applicant's solicitors closing remarks (the COM) said that she wished that she had chosen to recommend release. The COM had apparently asked the Applicant whether the Applicant's solicitor could arrange for her to give supplementary evidence. The Applicant indicates that his solicitor advised that this was not possible. Discussion[44]As noted by the Applicant himself in his application for reconsideration, the Parole Board are not empowered to receive evidence subsequent to the decision of the panel relating to a panel hearing. The decision of a Parole Board panel is based upon the evidence presented at the hearing. The parties have the opportunity to test that evidence. In this case the panel were not entirely persuaded by any single witness evidence. The rationale by the panel was based upon their assessment of the Applicant's evidence, the circumstances of the recall and the concerns which are set out above relating to non-compliance and a poor relationship with professionals. For that reason, I am not persuaded that this is a ground for reconsideration. Ground 3[45]The Applicant indicates that insufficient notice was taken of the fact that the Applicant had taken a polygraph test before his recall. The Applicant argues that the polygraph test showed that he was truthful, open, and honest with regard to the conversations that he had had with his COM. Discussion[46]From a reading of the panel decision, it is clear that the Applicant had not been entirely open and honest about the meeting that he had with a female (apparently in relation to a swapping of flats). There had also been the listed non-compliant issues relating to the recall. A polygraph test is by no means a final and definitive measure of truthfulness and honesty. The polygraph system is part of a holistic group of tools used to manage risk in the community. I am not persuaded that the polygraph test results alone would be a comprehensive and final measure of openness and honesty. I do not therefore find that this submission amounts to a ground for reconsideration. Ground 4[47]The Applicant submits that insufficient notice was taken by the Parole Board panel of the fact that the Applicant had been in a full-time job before his recall. Discussion[48]In making an overall assessment in this case, the panel noted that the Applicant had " demonstrated a degree of positive change since his recall. This includes his understanding that his recall was appropriate". The panel therefore took account of positive factors in relation to the overall assessment of risk. Employment would clearly be an important factor in stability in managing risk in the community. However, as noted above, the major concern of the panel was not related to the Applicant's ability to manage stability in terms of employment and accommodation, the major concern was the Applicant's ability to be open and honest with professionals in a way which would ensure that the risk of serious harm to children was addressed. Again, I am not persuaded that the fact that the panel did not specifically refer to the Applicant's employment record prior to recall is sufficient to engage reconsideration. Decision[49]For the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the decision was irrational and accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused. HH S Dawson 17 February 2026