Farmer, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 46 (23 February 2026) [2026] PBRA 46

PBRA

Farmer, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 46 (23 February 2026)

[2026] PBRA 46 · 2026-01-06

[1]This is an application by Farmer (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of a Parole Board panel member dated the 6 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

[3]I have considered the application on the papers. These are the dossier, the application for reconsideration drafted by the Applicants legal adviser, and the representations by the Secretary of State (the Respondent). Request for Reconsideration

[4]The application for reconsideration is dated 12 February 2026.

[5]The grounds for seeking a reconsideration are set out below. Background

[6]The Applicant is serving an extended sentence of imprisonment. The determinate period of the sentence being seven years and the extension a further seven years. The Applicant was released automatically on 8 May 2025 and was recalled on 6 November 2025. The index offences involved two offences of penetrative sexual activity with a female child under the age of 16, engaging in sexual communication with a child, meeting a girl under 16 following sexual grooming and breach of a sexual offences prevention order. The facts of the index offence are briefly set out below. The Applicant was aged 28 at the time of sentence. He was aged 36 at the time of the panel member's decision. Current parole review

[7]The referral by the Respondent requested the Parole Board to consider whether the Applicant should be subject to a direction for release.

[8]The panel hearing took place on 6 January 2026. The decision was made by a single panel member. The decision was made pursuant to the Member Case Assessment process of the Parole Board. The panel member considered a dossier which included representations on behalf of the Applicant. The Relevant Law

[9]The panel correctly sets out in its decision dated 6 January 2026 the test for release. 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)). Irrationality

[12]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.

[13]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. "

[14]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).

[15]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.

[16]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.

[17]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

[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;

(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. Error of law

[21]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.

[22]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

[23]In the cases of Osborn v Parole Board

[2013] UKSC 61

, the Supreme Court comprehensively reviewed the basis on which the Parole Board should consider applications for an oral hearing. Their conclusions are set out at paragraph 2 of the judgment. The Supreme Court did not decide that there should always be an oral hearing but said there should be if fairness to the prisoner requires one. The Supreme Court indicated that an oral hearing is likely to be necessary where the Board is in any doubt whether to direct one; they should be ordered where there is a dispute on the facts; where the panel needs to see and hear from the prisoner in order to properly assess risk and where it is necessary in order to allow the prisoner to properly put his case. When deciding whether to direct an oral hearing the Board should take into account the prisoner's legitimate interest in being able to participate in a decision with important implications for him. It is not necessary that there should be a realistic prospect of progression for an oral hearing to be directed.

[24]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

[25]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

[26]The Respondent offered no representations. Grounds and Discussion Ground 1

[27]The Applicant's legal adviser submits that the decision in this case exposes an error of law (although it is argued by way of procedural irregularity). It is argued that Rule 19 of the Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended) was misapplied. The rule was applicable to the Applicant's case and reads as follows; "19.— (1) Where a panel is appointed under rule 5(1) to consider the release of a prisoner, the panel must decide on the papers either that— (a) the prisoner is suitable for release; (b) the prisoner is unsuitable for release, or (c) the case should be directed to an oral hearing. (1ZA) Where a panel considers a case— (a) concerning a recall of a fixed term prisoner, (b) where a prisoner is under investigation for a new criminal offence, or has been charged with a new criminal offence, or (c) where a prisoner has an automatic release date which is imminent, making it impractical to hold a hearing, the case must not be directed to an oral hearing unless the panel is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances to justify an oral hearing."

[28]In this case the panel member noted that the Applicant was a recalled fixed term prisoner. The panel member therefore concluded that pursuant to clause (a) above the case could not be directed to an oral hearing unless the panel was of the opinion that there were exceptional circumstances to justify an oral hearing. In this case there were no exceptional circumstances, and the panel member therefore concluded the matter on the papers in accordance with the rule.

[29]The Applicant's legal adviser argues that the schedule (a, b, and c) under rule 19 (1ZA) should be interpreted, not as a schedule but on the basis that the subclauses (b) and (c) are alternative qualifications to clause (a). The suggested meaning of the statutory instrument is that it applies only to fixed term prisoners, and only to fixed term prisoners whose automatic release date is imminent or who are under investigation. By way of this interpretation the Applicant was a fixed term prisoner, however his automatic release date was not imminent, and he was not under investigation. It is therefore submitted, by the Applicant's legal adviser, that the Applicant did not fall under the " exceptional circumstances " criteria.

[30]I am not persuaded by this interpretation. If the clauses were only applicable to fixed term prisoners there would of necessity have to be the word ' and ' at the end of clause (a). Clauses (b) and (c), would have of necessity have referred to 'the prisoner ' referring back to clause (a).

[31]In my determination paragraph (1ZA) is a list. The three categories being recalled fixed term prisoners in category (a). All prisoners charged or being investigated in relation to a criminal offence in category (b) and all prisoners with an automatic release date (whether recalled or not) in category (c).

[32]The Applicant's legal adviser does not argue that there are exceptional circumstances in this case. I also do not find that there is evidence of exceptional circumstances therefore in my determination this application for reconsideration, so far as it relates to the wording of the statutory instrument, fails. Ground 2

[33]It is argued that the Applicant did not receive a fair hearing pursuant to The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It is submitted that refusal to grant an oral hearing amounts to a breach of the Applicant's right to a fair hearing. Discussion

[34]Again, I am not persuaded by this argument. The Applicant is clearly entitled to a fair hearing, but not necessarily to an oral hearing. It is often the case that hearings will be on the basis of papers and submissions, as in this case. I therefore do not find that the decision not to offer an oral hearing amounts to a breach of the Applicants rights pursuant to the ECHR. The Applicant was fully appraised of the material and evidence within the dossier; he was given appropriate rights in connection with making representations and was aware of the Parole Board rules which governed the decision. Ground 3

[35]In general terms, this is an application for reconsideration. I am therefore obliged to consider whether on grounds, other than those submitted above, the decision is procedurally unfair or irrational. Discussion

[36]The Applicant is serving an extended sentence of imprisonment. The index offences related to sexual offending concerning a victim aged between 13 and 15. Specifically the offences were sexual activity with a female child by penetration (two offences) and engaging in sexual communication with the child. The facts of the offending were that the Applicant contacted (on Facebook) a child with cognitive difficulties. He then arranged a meeting with the child and at that meeting sexually assaulted her. The Applicant was, at the time subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order.

[37]The Applicant has a history of convictions. There are 15 previous convictions totalling 28 offences listed. There are offences in 2007 and 2014 relating to sexual offending against teenage girls.

[38]The view of the panel member was that the Applicant's history of offending indicated a pattern of offences directed towards children and a poor record of compliance with court orders. The Applicant's risk factors were listed and included sexual attraction towards children, grooming behaviours, and sexual entitlement.

[39]The Applicant was recalled having been in breach of his licence conditions. In particular, he deleted applications from his mobile telephone including " dating applications ". He had also deleted a text message of conversations with a female which were sexually explicit; he also engaged in repeated contact with a previous victim by entering a shop (where she worked) on multiple occasions. He failed to disclose these issues (as he was obliged to do by way of his supervision) until they were highlighted by a polygraph test.

[40]The single member considered the representations made on behalf of the Applicant. It was said that the Applicant accepted there were breaches of his licence conditions but that he had explanations about the reason for the breaches. It was also suggested that prior to being formally recalled to prison, he had received a decision letter from the probation service indicating that he may not be recalled for the breaches.

[41]The view of the panel member was that the decision to recall was appropriate in the light of the breaches of licence conditions and the Applicant's potential high risk of harm to children.

[42]It was noted that the Applicant's Community Offender Manager (COM) had indicated that the Applicant poses a very high risk of serious harm to children. This rating implied that the risk of harm to children was imminent. The COM also took the view that the Applicant's risk could not be safely managed in the community. The panel agreed with the assessment of the COM. The basis of this assessment being the fact that there was clear evidence of the Applicant failing to adhere to licence conditions and thereby, on the basis of his criminal history, potentially placing others (particularly children) at high risk.

[43]The decision of the panel member was based upon the fact that there were concerns relating to the breaches of licence, the evidence of historical breaches of orders and licence conditions by the Applicant, and the fact that the Applicant failed to engage appropriately with professional supervision, in particular by failing to disclose internet contact and contact with a previous victim.

[44]Having considered the decision of the panel member I am satisfied that the basis of the decision could not be characterised as irrational or procedurally unfair in the sense set out above. The panel member concluded that the Applicant did not meet the test for release and set out the evidence upon which that decision was based. Accordingly, I do not order reconsideration in this case. Further note

[45]It is also noted by the Applicant's legal adviser that the statutory instrument relating to decisions to grant oral hearings (Rule 19) is now subject to revision. There will be a further statutory instrument promulgated in the next month or so. It is submitted that, were that revised statutory instrument in force, the Applicant may have been granted an oral hearing.

[46]The panel member was obliged to make a decision based upon the evidence presented within the dossier and within representations. This decision had to be based upon the Parole Board rules in force at the time of the decision. It is clear that the panel member would not have been entitled to apply the criteria applicable to a change in rules which were to be introduced in the future, but which were not in force at the time of the decision. Decision

[47]For the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the decision was irrational, procedurally unfair or based upon an error of law and accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused. HH Stephen Dawson 23 February 2026