Bouri, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 41 (19 February 2026) [2026] PBRA 41

PBRA
Bouri, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 41 (19 February 2026)
[2026] PBRA 41 · 2026-01-20
[1]This is an application by Bouri (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of an oral hearing panel dated the 20 January 2026. The decision of the panel was not to direct release or to recommend a transfer to an open prison.[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 application for reconsideration drafted by the Applicant, the written decision of the oral hearing panel and the response by the Secretary of State (the Respondent). Request for Reconsideration[4]The application for reconsideration is dated 4 February 2026 and was received by the Board on the 9 February 2026.[5]The grounds for seeking a reconsideration are set out below. Background[6]The index offence in this case was murder. At the time of committing the murder the Applicant was on licence in relation to two matters of indecent assault. The Applicant had been in the community for about nine months after the release in relation to the earlier indecent assault matters. The victim of the murder was a sex worker who was invited by the Applicant to his flat. The prosecution's case was that the victim had been invited on the basis of having sex for financial reward. The Applicant had a friend who was eventually his co-accused. According to the evidence at the trial the co-accused had a fascination with the prospect of killing someone who was thought to be a prostitute. The Applicant's involvement was said to be mainly sexual however he was said to be aware of the fact that his friend and co-accused had a desire to kill. At some stage, after the victim arrived at the flat, she was assaulted with a hammer and stabbed by the Applicant and his co-accused. They then attempted to incinerate the body. The body was placed in a box and dumped in a bin area and set light to. The Applicant initially denied responsibility for the murder but during his sentence has accepted responsibility for his part in the offending. The Applicant denies premeditation or sexual motivation. The Applicant was aged 19 at the time of the sentence. He was 41 at the time of the oral hearing. The Applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of 20 years less time he had served on remand. His tariff expired on 23 June 2023. 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 released whether the Applicant should be subject to a recommendation for transfer to an open prison.[8]The oral hearing panel consisted of a judicial chair, a psychologist member and a further independent member. Evidence was given by a Prison Offender Manager (POM), a (stand in) Community Offender Manager (COM) and a prison instructed psychologist. A prison officer was also present at the hearing. The panel considered a dossier, and evidence was given by the Applicant. The Applicant was not legally represented. The Relevant Law[9]The panel correctly sets out in its decision dated 20 January 2026 the test for release and the issues to be addressed in making a recommendation to the Respondent 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[19]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.[20]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.[21]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. Other[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]It is possible to argue that mistakes in findings of fact made by a decision maker result in the final decision being irrational, but the mistake of fact must be fundamental. The case of E v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] QB 1044 sets out the preconditions for such a conclusion:
" there must have been a mistake as to an existing fact, including a mistake as to the availability of evidence on a particular matter; the fact or evidence must have been "established", in the sense that it was uncontentious and objectively verifiable; the appellant (or his advisors) must not have been responsible for the mistake; and the mistake must have played a material (though not necessarily decisive) part in the tribunal's reasoning."
See also R (Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2003] AC 295 , which said that in order to establish that there was a demonstrable mistake of fact in the decision of the panel, an Applicant will have to provide " objectively verifiable evidence " of what is asserted to be the true picture.[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. Discussion Ground 1[29]The Applicant submits that the panel were in error in focusing upon the Applicant's alleged minimisation of the historical sexual offending rather than concentrating upon whether he was a risk of sexual offending in the future. The Applicant submits that " it does not matter " if he minimises his involvement in the index offending. Discussion[30]The oral hearing panel in this case considered all the evidence presented at the hearing including that from the Applicant. The index offence was exceptionally serious. A woman was invited to the Applicant's home. The Applicant denies a sexual interest in the invitation despite the judge taking the view that it was highly likely that the Applicant had some sort of sexual contact in mind (the victim was a sex worker). Minimisation is an important aspect of assessing risk. Minimisation has the effect of potentially allowing the prisoner to underestimate the seriousness of his offending and possibly to excuse it. For this reason the panel were entitled to take account of a finding that there was minimisation in this case and that the gravity of the offence had not been fully understood by the Applicant despite the passage of time since the index offence. The panel were also concerned about other more recent factors, in particular, his relationship with other prisoners and paying off their debts which could amount to a dependent style of relationship similar to that which preceded the index offending. There were also concerns about the Applicant's sexual interest in female prison officers. These matters indicated to the panel that the Applicant remained limited in his ability to manage his risk of serious harm (particularly sexual harm) in the community. He was undertaking therapy which it was thought might assist in managing risk. In the circumstances I am not persuaded that the panel underestimated the level of risk in this case or that they over emphasised the issue of minimisation. Ground 2[31]The Applicant submits that the panel acted procedurally unfairly because they did not investigate various matters including; alleged incident's involving threats to others using weapons; the suggestion by professionals that the Applicant requires considerable support and encouragement were he to be in the community; and the suggestion that the Applicant had a " fear of rejection " which leads to him not using skills which should have been acquired during earlier programme work. Discussion[32]This was a case which was considered in some depth by the panel. The panel had the advantage of evidence from a prison instructed psychologist, a POM, and a COM. All the professionals took the view that the Applicant's risk could not be safely managed in the community at the time of the hearing. The panel analysed the evidence and had both oral and written evidence including a dossier of some considerable length to consider. A reading of the oral hearing decision indicates that the panel focused upon the issues relating to the risk of serious harm that might be posed by the Applicant in the community and in an open prison. Whilst the Applicant clearly takes a different view, in my determination the panel clearly set out the reasons why they took the view that the Applicant's risk could not be safely managed in the community. I am not persuaded that the panel failed to address the appropriate issues relating to risk which was their duty under the referral. Ground 3[33]The Applicant submits that there were a number of mistakes of fact which affected the decision namely:[34]Paragraph 1.3 - The Applicant submits that the reporting of his activities with his co-accused (at the time of the index offence) were misrecorded. Namely that he did not play computer games with his co-accused before the index offence or have drugs with him.[35]Discussion - At page 50 of the dossier is a note of a post sentence probation report prepared by a probation officer in 2004. In that report the playing of computer games and using of drugs with his co-accused is recorded. In the light of the fact that this was a contemporaneous interview with the Applicant, fairly soon after the index offence, I am not persuaded that there is evidence that the panel misrecorded this information.[36]Paragraph 1.5 - The Applicant submits that the panel failed to take account of his neuro diversity traits when assessing whether the Applicant showed remorse.[37]Discussion - The panel decision records that the COM took the view that the Applicant did not display remorse when being interviewed. This was recorded by the panel. However, at 2.23 of the decision the panel investigated the Applicant's views about remorse. The Applicant told the panel that he did not feel that remorse was a useful protective factor. The Applicant told the panel that he took the view that " respect " was much more important for him. In the light of the overall comments about this topic by the panel, I am not persuaded that the panel dealt with the issue unfairly. The panel were well aware of the Applicant's neuro diversity and indeed of the fact that he had worked as a neuro diversity worker in the prison.[38]Paragraph 1.5 - The Applicant submits that the panel wrongly recorded that he continues to fantasise about previous sexual offending. The Applicant submits that he had not done so for at least three years.[39]Discussion - At paragraph 1.5 the panel specifically indicated that the written decision of the last panel in 2023 noted that in interviews with his COM, the Applicant did not show remorse and still fantasised about sexual offending. The reference at paragraph 1.5 therefore related to the panel referring back to a report in 2023. Again, this does not in my determination amount to an error by the panel.[40]Paragraph 2.1 - The Applicant submits that the panel recorded him as having two adjudications relating to obstructing a prison officer rather than one.[41]Discussion - Having consulted the dossier it appears that the adjudication relating to obstructing an officer at page 417 of the dossier was recorded twice and that recording has obviously resulted in the panel indicating that there were two offences rather than a single offence. Whilst accuracy is important it should be noted that during 2016 there had been earlier assaults and in general terms the Applicant's behaviour had been negative. I am not persuaded that this minor factual error had any bearing upon the decision of the panel.[42]Paragraph 2.2 - The Applicant submits that the panel misrecorded the date when he was returned to the prison system (from a mental health unit) namely it was 2011 not 2012.[43]Discussion - At page 55 of the dossier is a schedule produced by the prison service of the Applicant's prison movements. That schedule records that the Applicant was discharged to hospital in July 2010. It then records that he was transferred in (to prison) on 16 March 2012. It seems therefore that the prison records are in error because in other parts of the dossier there are adjudications for negative behaviour in 2011. It appears the panel were mistaken in recording a return to the system from hospital in 2012. This error was generated by an error on the part of the prison service schedule. The error does not impact upon risk or the decision of the panel.[44]Paragraph 2.5 - The Applicant submits that he had been on a named medication since February 2024 not April 2021.[45]Discussion - The panel made an error in recording that the medication began being taken in 2021 rather than 2024. Although an error, this is not a matter which impacts upon the decision relating to risk.[46]Paragraph 2.12 - The Applicant submits that he is no longer maintaining that stance that he can manage the risk of sexual harm by living a life of celibacy.[47]Discussion - This issue was raised by professional witnesses. The Applicant at some stages of his discussions with professionals had indicated that he took the view that celibacy would be a viable method of managing sexual thoughts and fantasies. Professionals took a different view. This was an issue which was addressed by the panel in the decision. It does not, in my view impact upon the decision of the panel.[48]Paragraph 2.17 - The Applicant submits that the panel indicated that a Ms I was at the hearing which was not the case.[49]Discussion - It is apparent that the panel transposed the name of (Ms I) for the psychologist who was giving evidence. It is regrettable that this transposition was not checked before the decision was issued, however it is quite clear from the decision that the comments in the written decision relate to the evidence given by the prison instructed psychologist.[50]Paragraph 2.21 - The Applicant submits that the panel recorded that he had had arguments with his brother concerning drugs whereas in fact these were with a different male.[51]Discussion - It is noted that the Applicant wishes to correct the identity of people with whom he had arguments. This does not, in my determination, amount to a material issue, impacting upon risk.[52]Paragraph 2.23 - The Applicant submits that the panel were mistaken in assuming that the Applicant had associated with his co-defendant (when on licence before recall) and sought help from the co-defendant.[53]Discussion - There is clearly a difference of interpretation by the Applicant. The panel recorded the fact that the Applicant himself said (in the hearing) that he had sought increasing support from his co-defendant rather than from his family. There is clearly a difference of opinion so far as this comment is concerned, however again I am not persuaded that it is a material matter which would affect the outcome of the decision.[54]Paragraph 2.28 - The Applicant submits that he denies being sexually preoccupied at the time of the index offence or at other times.[55]Discussion - The issue relating to sexual preoccupation was one which was raised by the prison instructed psychologist. It was a view presented by the psychologist and was based upon the Applicant's previous offending and the evidence gathered by the psychologist in support of the report. The Applicant's description of the index offence was recorded by the panel at paragraph 2.21. The panel therefore had the Applicant's position as well as the views of the psychologist all of which were matters of evidence considered by the panel in reaching its conclusion.[56]Paragraph 4.2 - The Applicant submits that the panel failed to explain why his account of the index offence remains " extremely troubling " despite the passage of time.[57]Discussion - It is noted in the panel's decision that the reason why the panel found the explanation by the Applicant troubling was that the Applicant appeared to explain the murder in terms of paranoia and anxiety following a previous theft by a sex worker. The panel took the view that the general explanation for the index offending was minimised by the Applicant. In particular the sexual aspect of the offending was believed to be minimised in the light of the fact that the Applicant had been involved in previous sexually related incidents.[58]Paragraph 4.3 - The Applicant submits that the panel did not explain why the paying off of other prisoner's debts parallels his relationship with his co-defendant in the index offence.[59]Discussion - This was a case which was closely associated with the relationship between the Applicant and his close friend who committed the murder with him. The Applicant's evidence to the panel was that the murder occurred because his friend and associate suggested murdering the female who had come to the flat. The panel, it appears, were raising questions about the possibility of the Applicant becoming involved in a dependent association or relationship with other prisoners which could be parallel to the relationship he seemed to have had with his co-defendant prior to and after the murder. Whilst this concern could have been explained in more detail, I am not persuaded that it amounts to an issue engaging reconsideration. Decision[60]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 Stephen Dawson 19 February 2026