Watson, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 5 (09 January 2026) [2026] PBRA 5
[1]This is an application by Watson for reconsideration of a decision of an oral hearing panel dated the 19 November 2025 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 the oral hearing decision, the dossier consisting of 399 pages and the application for reconsideration. Request for Reconsideration[4]The application for reconsideration is dated 24 November 2025. It has been drafted by solicitors on behalf of the Applicant. It submits that the decision contains an error of law, is irrational or is procedurally unfair.[5]The submission is supplemented by written arguments to which reference will be made in the Discussion section below. Background[6]The Applicant received a sentence of imprisonment for public protection on 16 November 2009 following conviction for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. His tariff was set at 5 years 6 months and expired in June 2014. He also received concurrent sentences for other assaults and damaging property.[7]The Applicant was 29 years old at the time of sentencing and is now 45 years old. Current parole review[8]The Applicant's case was referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State (the Respondent) in December 2024 to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to direct his release. If the Board did not consider it appropriate to direct release, it was invited to advise the Respondent whether the Applicant should be transferred to open conditions.[9]The case proceeded to an oral hearing via videoconference on 17 November 2025. The panel consisted of two independent members. It heard oral evidence from the Applicant together with his Prison Offender Manager, Community Offender Manager and a Prison Forensic Psychologist. The Applicant was legally represented throughout the hearing. The Respondent was not represented by an advocate. 10.The panel did not direct the Applicant's release nor make a recommendation for open conditions. It is only the release decision that is open for reconsideration. The Relevant Law 11.The panel correctly sets out in its decision letter dated 19 November 2025 the test for release and the issues to be addressed in making a recommendation to the Secretary of State for a progressive move to open conditions. Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)[12]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)).[13]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 14.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. 15.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. " 16.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). 17.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. 18.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. 19.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[20]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.[21]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.[22]The overriding objective is to ensure that the Applicant's case was dealt with justly. Error of law 23.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. 24.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. The reply on behalf of the Respondent 25.The Respondent has submitted no representations in response to this application. Discussion Procedural Unfairness and Irrationality 26.The application submits that the panel's decision not to direct release was irrational and involved an error of law. It is argued that the panel erred in law in its consideration of the Applicant's insight into his alcohol misuse. The application references many occasions in the dossier where the evidence supports the conclusion that the Applicant possesses insight into the risk around alcohol. The application challenges a number of the behaviour entries, such as comments he is alleged to have made after his pay was cut and after being asked to hand over his medication. 27.The underlying theme of the Applicant's submissions is the rejection by the panel of the conclusion of both offender managers supporting release. The review is not a rubber stamp exercise, panels are not obliged to adopt the opinions and recommendations of professional witnesses. It is their responsibility to make their own risk assessment and to evaluate the likely effectiveness of any risk management plan proposed. The panel has done that and has given reasons for reaching its own, different conclusions. There is nothing procedurally unfair or irrational in that approach. 28.The Applicant takes issue with the approach and conclusions of the panel regarding his insight into alcohol misuse. He sets out all the occasions this is referenced and seeks to reargue his position regarding his insight. He complains about the weight the panel attached to evidence presented, arguing that the panel placed too much weight on the opinions of the sentencing judge and on one statement he made about future consumption of alcohol. 29.The Applicant's detailed complaints about the way in which the panel dealt with the issue of alcohol consumption are simply disagreements with the panel's findings and a failure to carefully consider the evidence. The panel noted, as the psychologist had pointed out, that drinking was not the sole trigger to his violence, there were other factors such as emotional management, self-control, poor conflict resolution skills which were also aspects of risk. It was a matter for the panel the weight they attached to the evidence presented, there was no basis for the claim that the decision was based mainly on those of the sentencing judge. These matters were all raised before the panel and findings made on them. Those findings are neither irrational nor unfair and the grounds are simply taking an opportunity to re-argue matters already properly, thoroughly and fairly considered by the panel. The Applicant is no doubt disappointed that release was not directed but disappointment and disagreement are not enough to establish irrationality in law. The legal test sets a high bar which this case does not meet. 30.The Applicant points to the courses and ROTLs (Release on Temporary Licence) he has undertaken and submits that there is no further work to be done. The panel clearly took into consideration his completion of programmes. However completing a programme is not the same as demonstrating evidence of having internalised the learning from that programme. The panel whilst acknowledging that he had engaged with the programmes noted that he needed to demonstrate that " he could sustain the necessary changes " and was not persuaded that he had reduced his risk sufficiently to allow a direction for release. Error of Law 31.The Applicant submits that " the codified test for release is not complex " but that " the panel failed to adequately apply the test, therefore constituting an error of law ". The Applicant again repeats that all professionals felt that risk was manageable and the panel did not take this into account. This submission is without basis and without merit. The panel took into account the views of the professionals but concluded that the effectiveness of the risk management plan would also be influenced by the Applicant's " attitude towards alcohol and his openness and honesty ". Whether or not the code is complex it was correctly set out and clearly, properly and fairly applied by the panel as set out in paragraph 4 of the decision. Decision 32.For the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the decision was irrational, I do not find that the Applicant has identified any procedural unfairness or error of law and accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused. Barbara Mensah 09 January 2026