Brown, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 48 (23 February 2026) [2026] PBRA 48

PBRA
Brown, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 48 (23 February 2026)
[2026] PBRA 48 · 2026-02-05
[1]This is an application by Brown (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of an oral hearing dated 26 January 2026 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: a) The decision. b) The application, handwritten by the Applicant on the prisoner application form, dated 5 February 2026. c) The dossier, consisting of 263 numbered pages, the decision being the last document. Request for Reconsideration[4]The grounds for seeking a reconsideration are that the decision not to direct release is irrational. The Applicant challenges the approach of the panel to various aspects of the evidence, including giving insufficient weight to his progress in prison and following the professional opinion of the Community Offender Manager (COM) rather than those of the Prison Offender Manager (POM) and the prison commissioned psychologist (PCP). Background[5]The Applicant was 20 years old in 2021, when he received an extended determinate sentence of 11 years, consisting of a custodial term of seven years and four years extended licence. He was 19 when he committed the offences of attempted wounding with intent and wounding with intent. He attacked with a machete two young men, one of whom managed to escape, the other suffering very serious injuries. A count of attempted murder was left to lie on the file. The Applicant had previous convictions for possession of a knife, and for affray, on a different occasion, which also involved possession of a knife. The sentencing judge considered that this was part of a dispute between two gangs. The Applicant was himself shot and injured a few days later. His Parole Eligibility Date was 31 August 2025. His Conditional Release Date is December 2027, and his Sentence Expiry Date is December 2031. Following a proven adjudication the Applicant received 35 days added to his sentence, which amended his Parole Eligibility Date to October 2025 and his Conditional Release Date to February 2028. He is now 24. Current parole review[6]The Secretary of State (the Respondent) referred the case to the Parole Board in November 2024 for consideration of release.[7]The hearing took place remotely on 21 January 2026. The panel consisted of two independent members and one psychologist member of the Parole Board. The witnesses were the POM, the COM, and the PCP. The Applicant gave evidence. He was legally represented throughout. The Relevant Law[8]The panel correctly sets out in its decision the test for release. Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)[9]Rules 28(1) and (2) of the Parole Board Rules provide the types of decision and of sentence which are eligible for reconsideration. These are eligible. Irrationality[10]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.[11]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. "
[12]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).[13]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.[14]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.[15]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 Secretary of State[16]The Respondent has chosen not to offer any representations in response to this application. Discussion[17]I should explain at once that I must deal with this application in accordance with the law as it is set out above. I cannot replace the panel's assessment of risk with my own. That is not what the Reconsideration procedure is for.[18]As I have set out above, the Applicant's complaint is that the decision is irrational. His grounds for so asserting, however, consist of complaints as to the weight the panel attached to various aspects of the evidence. He does not suggest that the panel failed to take into account matters that it should have done, or took into account matters that it should not. His complaint is solely about the conclusions the panel drew from the whole of the evidence. Where a panel arrives at a conclusion, exercising its judgement based on the evidence before it and having regard to the fact that 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.[19]Disagreement with the panel's decision, or indeed its assessment of the evidence, does not demonstrate irrationality as it is defined above. The panel acknowledged that there had been an improvement in the Applicant's behaviour, clearly demonstrated by a fall in adjudication proceedings, as his sentence has progressed. He has been recategorised as Category D. He completed a victim awareness course in 2024 and a thinking skills course in June 2025. The panel found evidence of positive change.[20]An important feature of the case is that the Applicant denies that the index offences were gang-related, but chose not to explain to the panel, or anyone else, what did in fact motivate him to carry out the attack. He said " I don't want to go into it too deep - I had a personal reason. I am not discussing it, it was just a personal issue and I wanted to harm and to scare them ." The Applicant was perfectly entitled to take that approach when he was asked questions, but he should understand that the panel's comment ("...this meant that the panel was unable to properly understand and evaluate the reasons for his serious offending and the implications for future risk management." ) is entirely justified.[21]In his application the Applicant explains that " When I was much younger I had poor emotional control ..." He refers to "... traumatic experiences that I did not feel comfortable to disclose ." He points out that he has never denied any of his offending. But openness is usually understood to involve a willingness to discuss motivation as well as acceptance of the facts of the offence, for the obvious reason that understanding why someone behaved in a particular way is relevant to assessing whether they will behave in a similar way in future.[22]The panel acknowledged the professional opinions of the POM and the PCP, who supported release, but carried out, as it was obliged to do, its own assessment of risk. It concluded that the evidence from the professionals did not demonstrate that the Applicant posed no more than a minimal risk of serious harm to the public if released. The panel was concerned that the reasons and motivations for his offending were not fully understood. This hindered exploration by professionals.[23]The panel was concerned about the Applicant's ability to build an open and honest relationship with his COM at this time. Again, the Applicant's own evidence to the panel entirely supports the panel's reasoning.[24]The panel's reasoning is fully set out in the decision and is properly founded on the evidence. The Applicant closes his application by saying " I urge whomever is reading to reconsider the decision as I am not the only party to disagree with the decision. Thank you.. ." I have carefully considered not only the matters raised by the Applicant, but the decision as a whole, to see if I can find any proper basis for challenging its rationality. I cannot. Decision[25]For the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the decision was irrational, and accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused. HH Patrick Thomas KC 23 February 2026