Carter, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 47 (20 February 2026) [2026] PBRA 47

PBRA
Carter, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 47 (20 February 2026)
[2026] PBRA 47 · 2026-01-20
[1]This is an application by Carter (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision dated 20 January 2026 not to direct his release. The decision was made by a panel after an oral hearing.[2]Rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended) (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.[3]I have considered the application on the papers. These are the decision, the dossier (consisting of 416 numbered pages), and the application for reconsideration. Background[4]On 22 February 2008, the Applicant was convicted of robbery to which he pleaded guilty. He received a sentence of imprisonment for public protection. The minimum term was set at 18 months less time spent on remand and expired in August 2009.[5]The Applicant was 22 years old at the time of sentencing and is now 40 years old.[6]The Applicant has been released and recalled three times on this sentence. He was most recently released in October 2021 but recalled after one day. It is reported that he was under the influence of alcohol and possibly illicit substances and made threats to staff at his designated accommodation. Request for Reconsideration[7]The application for reconsideration has been submitted by solicitors on behalf of the Applicant. It argues that the decision was procedurally unfair and/or irrational.[8]The submissions are supplemented by written arguments to which reference will be made in the Discussion section below. Current Parole Review[9]The Applicant's case was referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State (the Respondent) in November 2024 to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to direct his release. This is the Applicant's second parole review since his third recall.[10]The case proceeded to an oral hearing on 12 January 2026, before a three-member panel. The panel heard oral evidence from the Applicant, the Prison Offender Manager (POM), and the Community Offender Manager (COM). The Applicant was legally represented throughout the hearing and closing submissions were provided in writing after the hearing.[11]The panel placed significant weight on the seriousness of the index offence and the Applicant's extensive history of violent offending, including offences committed while on licence. The panel was particularly concerned that the Applicant has been released and recalled on three occasions, with the longest period in the community lasting approximately four and a half months, each recall being associated with substance misuse, poor compliance, and threatening or volatile behaviour.[12]In addition, the panel found that substance misuse remained a live and unresolved risk factor. There had been multiple incidents of the Applicant being under the influence in custody, including in the weeks immediately preceding the oral hearing. The panel concluded that substance misuse was closely linked to the Applicant's risk of reoffending and increased the imminence of serious harm.[13]Although the panel acknowledged some recent engagement with support services, it considered this work to be at an early stage and insufficient to demonstrate sustained, internalised change. The panel was not persuaded that the Applicant had developed adequate internal controls, noting recent adjudications, threats to staff, and the use of racist and derogatory language. While professional witnesses recommended release and considered the proposed risk management plan to be robust, the panel concluded that too much reliance was being placed on external controls and that the plan would not be capable of safely managing risk at the present time.[14]The panel did not direct the Applicant's release. The Relevant Law[15]The Parole Board will direct release if it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined. Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)[16]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)).[17]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)).[18]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 . 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. Irrationality[22]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 (CA) 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.[23]In R(DSD and others) v Parole Board [2018] EWHC 694 (Admin) the Divisional Court applied this test to Parole Board hearings in these words (at [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 ."
[24]In R(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 the Divisional Court in R(Secretary of State for Justice) v Parole Board [2022] EWHC 1282 (Admin).[25]As was made clear by Saini J in Wells, 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.[26]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.[27]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. The reply on behalf of the Respondent[28]The Respondent has submitted no representations in response to this application. Discussion Procedural unfairness[29]The Applicant argues that the hearing was unfair because it proceeded by way of video link rather than face to face, despite earlier requests and indications that an in-person hearing was preferred. The decision records that the panel chair considered the Applicant's request for a face-to-face hearing and concluded that the hearing could be conducted fairly via video link. It also records that the POM and the Applicant's legal representative were present with the Applicant at the prison, and that the Applicant was able to give evidence, hear the evidence of others, and make submissions. There is no absolute entitlement to a face-to-face hearing. The relevant question is whether the procedure adopted was fair in all the circumstances. The application does not identify any specific prejudice arising from the hearing format, nor does it suggest that the Applicant was unable to participate effectively, challenge evidence, or advance his case. There is also no suggestion that the panel's assessment of the Applicant's credibility, demeanour, or evidence was impaired by the hearing format. In those circumstances, I am not satisfied that the conduct of the hearing rendered the proceedings procedurally unfair. Irrationality[30]The Applicant submits that the panel placed insufficient weight on the professional recommendations for release and on the robustness of the proposed risk management plan. The decision demonstrates that the panel carefully considered and accurately summarised the evidence of the professional witnesses, including their recommendations for release and the proposed plan involving placement at specialist designated accommodation with restrictive licence conditions. The panel was entitled to depart from those recommendations, provided it gave rational reasons for doing so.[31]The panel identified a number of matters which it considered to be of central importance. These included the Applicant's extensive history of violent offending, the seriousness of the index offence, and the fact that the Applicant has been released and recalled on three occasions, with each period in the community ending in recall and the longest lasting only a matter of months. The panel was particularly concerned that substance misuse remained a live and unresolved risk factor, noting multiple incidents of the Applicant being under the influence in custody, including shortly before the oral hearing. The panel concluded that substance misuse was closely linked to the Applicant's offending behaviour and increased both the likelihood and imminence of serious harm.[32]The panel also considered the Applicant's recent engagement with support services. While acknowledging this as a positive development, the panel was entitled to conclude that this work was at an early stage and did not yet demonstrate sustained or internalised change. The panel placed weight on recent adjudications, threats towards staff, and the use of racist and derogatory language, which it considered indicative of ongoing difficulties with emotional regulation, attitudes, and compliance. Against that background, the panel concluded that the proposed risk management plan relied too heavily on external controls and would not be capable of safely managing the Applicant's risk at the present time.[33]The reasons given by the panel are coherent, logically connected to the evidence, and directly engage with the statutory public protection test. The fact that the panel reached a different conclusion from the professional witnesses does not render the decision irrational. The decision was one the panel was entitled to reach on the evidence before it. Decision[34]For the reasons set out above, the application for reconsideration is refused. Stefan Fafinski 20 February 2026