Kay, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 43 (19 February 2026) [2026] PBRA 43
[1]This is an application by Kay ("the Applicant") for reconsideration of a decision of a panel of the Parole Board ("the Panel"), at an oral hearing which took place on 13 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 366 numbered pages. b) The Panel's decision dated 23 January 2026. c) The application for reconsideration ("the application") by the Applicant. Request for Reconsideration[4]The application is dated 31 January 2026 and was received by the Parole Board on 4 February 2026.[5]Reconsideration is said to be sought on the basis of procedural unfairness in reliance upon a variety of grounds which I will consider within the Discussion section of my decision. Background[6]The Applicant is now aged 39. On 14 November 2011, at the age of 25 and upon his guilty plea, he was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder ("the index offence"). The minimum term was set at 13 years and 100 days and the tariff expiry date is given as 22 February 2025. On the same occasion no separate penalties were imposed for offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) x2, production of cannabis and supply of cannabis.[7]The Applicant and the victims (RL and AD) were drinking companions. He assaulted AD and, when RL remonstrated with him about this, he assaulted him, kicking him to the head several times, causing unsurvivable brain injuries. At the time of the index offence the Applicant was on bail for cultivating cannabis for his own use and for supplying on a small-scale basis to known users.[8]The Applicant has been diagnosed with a lifelong mental health condition for which he needs to take medication and the Panel found that at the time of the index offence he was not taking this and was under the influence of cannabis and alcohol.[9]The Applicant had prior criminal convictions for theft and other dishonesty, driving offences including dangerous driving, ABH and battery.[10]This was the Applicant's second review. He had transferred to open prison conditions in November 2024 following a recommendation of a panel of the Parole Board which was accepted by the Respondent.[11]The Applicant had completed supervised and unsupervised day releases (RDR) on licence into the community but had yet to undertake RDRs to a family address or overnight releases on temporary licence (ROR) to Approved Premises, both of which the Prison Offender Manager and the Community Offender Manager considered to be essential prior to release. Current parole review[12]The Applicant's case was referred to the Parole Board by the Respondent in May 2024 to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to direct his release.[13]The case was allocated to a panel which comprised three independent members, one of whom chaired the Panel.[14]The Applicant was represented by his solicitor who sought a direction for release.[15]At the hearing evidence was given by: a) The Prison Offender Manager. b) The Community Offender Manager. c) The Applicant. The Relevant Law[16]The Panel correctly sets out the test for release in its decision.[17]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[18]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.[19]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.[20]The overriding objective is to ensure that the applicant's case was dealt with justly. Reconsideration as a discretionary remedy[21]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[22]In an email dated 9 February 2026 the Public Protection Group at HMPPS confirmed that the Respondent provided no representations in response to the application. Discussion[23]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 or 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.[24]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.[25]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.[26]Although the application bears the name and e-mail address of the solicitor who represented the Applicant at the oral hearing, the handwritten submissions appear to have been drawn up without the benefit of legal advice or assistance as they consist, almost entirely, of criticisms which cannot be attributable to the Panel or would amount to procedural unfairness.[27]However, in deference to the Applicant's submissions, I will address each of them briefly.[28]The Applicant refers to there having been a number of adjournments during the course of the referral which, while of course frustrating for him, would not appear, even on his own account, to have been unjustified.[29]The Applicant states that he has done nothing wrong in prison and done whatever he has been asked of him, but these amount to further arguments in support of his application for release rather than providing evidence of procedural unfairness.[30]The Applicant also complains about what he suggests is inordinate delay on the part of the prison authorities in, initially, effecting his move to open prison conditions and, thereafter, in arranging for his escorted and unescorted RDRs as well as the fact that his unescorted RDRs to a family address and his RORs had still not been authorised. I find that none of these failures can be attributed to the Panel or to the process by which it arrived at its decision and do not, in my view, amount to procedural unfairness.[31]Finally, the Applicant refers, anecdotally, to the cases of other prisoners who, he understands, have progressed with greater speed through the release on temporary licence (ROTL) process.[32]It is understandable that the Applicant is disappointed by the outcome of his parole review but it is clear that the Panel gave careful consideration to the written evidence which was before it together with the oral evidence of the Applicant himself as well as the professional witnesses, neither of whom supported his application for release.[33]Put shortly, the Panel noted the facts of the index offence and found that the Applicant was capable of causing serious harm. It acknowledged that he has engaged in work to address his offending behaviour and there was no evidence of illicit drug use, alcohol use or violence during his sentence even when he was failing to take his medication.[34]The Applicant had been tested on accompanied and unaccompanied RDRs and was now to progress to RDRs to a family address and to RORs, both of which steps the Prison and Community Offender Managers considered to be essential prior to release.[35]Accordingly, whilst acknowledging the progress which the Applicant had made, given his previous history, the Panel concluded that " he needs to be tested on RORs to see how he copes with that additional freedom and the stressors/challenges this may bring prior to release and whether he remains concordant with his mental health medication and does not revert to maladaptive coping strategies."[36]Upon consideration of the application, I find that the Applicant is unable to put before me any matters or arguments which could substantiate a finding that there has been any procedural unfairness in this case which would justify a direction for reconsideration. Decision[37]Accordingly, I find that the application is without merit and, for the reasons I have given and applying the appropriate tests, I do not consider that the decision was procedurally unfair and the application for reconsideration is, therefore, refused. Peter H. F. Jones 19 February 2026