Campbell, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 50 (27 February 2026) [2026] PBRA 50

PBRA

Campbell, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 50 (27 February 2026)

[2026] PBRA 50 · 2026-01-29

[1]This is an application by Campbell (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision dated 29 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

[3]I have considered the application on the papers. These are the decision, the dossier (now consisting of 698 numbered pages), and the application for reconsideration. I have also listened to the audio recordings of the hearings that took place on 27 May 2025 and 28 January 2026. Background

[4]On 30 November 2015, the Applicant was convicted of possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life. He received an extended sentence with a custodial period of 13 years and six months and a three year period on extended licence.

[5]The Applicant was 23 years old at the time of sentencing and is now 34 years old.

[6]Key dates relevant to his sentence are reported to be: a) parole eligibility date: November 2024; b) conditional release date: May 2029; and c) sentence expiry date: May 2032. 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. No submissions are made regarding irrationality or error of law.

[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 March 2024 to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to direct his release. This is the Applicant's first parole review.

[10]The case proceeded to an oral hearing on 27 May 2025, before a three-member panel including a psychologist specialist member. The Applicant was legally represented throughout the hearing. The panel heard full evidence from the Prison Offender Manager (POM) and partial evidence from the Applicant before adjourning.

[11]Panel Chair Directions (PCDs) issued that day note that the review was adjourned after new and materially different information emerged during the Applicant's oral evidence. Although the Applicant had consistently maintained throughout custody a limited account of the index offence, he accepted the prosecution case in full for the first time during questioning. This departure from his long-held position raised a concern that the professional reports, accredited work, and existing risk assessments had all been completed on the basis of an earlier narrative. The panel concluded that it would be procedurally unfair to either party to proceed to a final determination without giving professionals the opportunity to consider whether the Applicant's revised account affected their risk assessment, formulation, and professional opinion. The hearing was therefore adjourned to allow for updated professional input before the matter was reconvened.

[12]The panel also considered and rejected the legal representative's contemporaneous suggestion that the Applicant had misunderstood the panel's questions. The panel observed that, when questioned, the Applicant provided specific, responsive, and detailed answers, including clarifying and expanding upon his evidence where appropriate. In the panel's view this demonstrated that he fully understood the questions being asked and could engage meaningfully with the inquiry, rather than being confused, inhibited, or unable to participate. The panel was therefore satisfied that the Applicant was not prevented from giving his evidence and that the questioning had not undermined the fairness of the proceedings.

[13]The review was adjourned to 13 October 2025. The same three member panel convened. PCDs issued that day note that the panel again adjourned the proceedings due to the emergence of new information relevant to risk. Since the previous adjournment, the Applicant had been returned to closed conditions following an allegation of a sexual nature arising from a work placement, and there was also an outstanding adjudication relating to the possession of an unauthorised mobile phone and Wi-Fi dongle. At the time of the hearing, the criminal allegation remained under police investigation, the Applicant had not yet been interviewed, and neither the investigation nor the adjudication had concluded. Following a short break, the Applicant's legal representative requested an adjournment for these matters to conclude, which the panel agreed, and the case was listed to reconvene on 28 January 2026 once the relevant investigations had concluded and updated reports were available.

[14]The same three member panel convened on 28 January 2026. Oral evidence was taken from current and former POMs, the Applicant, a forensic psychologist commissioned by HMPPS and the Community Offender Manager (COM). The Applicant was legally represented throughout the hearing and closing submissions were provided in writing after the hearing.

[15]Although the panel acknowledged the Applicant's completion of a number of accredited programmes, periods of stability in custody, and progression to open conditions prior to his return to closed conditions, it was not satisfied that these factors sufficiently mitigated the risk of serious harm. The panel was particularly concerned by the Applicant's long-standing pattern of serious violence, his use of weapons, poor compliance history, and the fact that the index offence was committed while he was on licence.

[16]The former POM withdrew support for release. The current POM and COM supported release. The psychologist did not support release, expressing concern that the Applicant's insight into his offending and risk factors remained fragile, particularly given the inconsistency in his accounts of the index offence and previous violent offending, and the late acceptance of the prosecution case after many years of minimisation. The panel was therefore required to resolve conflicting professional opinions.

[17]The panel accepted the psychologist's evidence that this inconsistency undermined confidence in the Applicant's internalisation of learning from interventions and meant that the true impact of that learning on his risk reduction could not yet be reliably assessed.

[18]Taking the evidence as a whole, the panel concluded that the statutory test for release was not met, as it was not satisfied that the Applicant had demonstrated sufficient, sustained change to show that his risk of serious harm could be safely managed in the community. The panel made no direction for release. The Relevant Law

[19]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)

[20]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)).

[21]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)).

[22]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

[23]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.

[24]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.

[25]The overriding objective is to ensure that the applicant's case was dealt with justly. The reply on behalf of the Respondent

[26]The Respondent has submitted no representations in response to this application. Discussion

[27]The Applicant seeks reconsideration of the decision on the basis of procedural unfairness, contending that the manner in which the oral hearings were conducted prevented him from putting his case properly. He argues that the panel's questioning went beyond firm and inquisitorial examination and became argumentative, confrontational, and hostile, which in turn inhibited his ability to give open and reliable evidence.

[28]The Applicant submits that, during questioning about the index offence and other allegations, he felt pressured to accept elements of the prosecution case that he had not previously accepted and which he maintains did not reflect his true position. He contends that this pressure was apparent at the time of the first hearing and carried over into the reconvened hearing, notwithstanding being advised to answer honestly.

[29]In particular, the Applicant alleges that he was interrupted on multiple occasions, including being told to stop speaking while responding to questions, which he says undermined his confidence and left him with the impression that his evidence was not being fully heard or considered. He further asserts that the panel employed questioning techniques that conveyed scepticism or presumptions about disputed matters, including asking him to accept alleged behaviour that he continued to deny.

[30]The Applicant maintains that these features of the questioning amounted to procedural unfairness because they materially affected the quality of the evidence he was able to give. He submits that, as a result, the panel was deprived of the best available evidence on which to assess risk, rendering the decision procedurally unfair.

[31]As a starting point, rule 24(2)(b) provides that a panel may ask any question to satisfy itself as to the level of risk posed by a prisoner. That power necessarily includes robust and probing questioning. Such an approach is commonplace in oral hearings. However, questioning must not be conducted in a manner that objectively undermines a prisoner's ability to understand the questions being asked or to put his case properly.

[32]I have considered the Applicant's submissions carefully, including the allegation that the panel's questioning was confrontational or hostile and that this inhibited his ability to give evidence. I have also listened to the audio recordings of the hearings. Having done so, I am satisfied that the questioning, taken as a whole, fell squarely within the range of proper inquisitorial testing of evidence that a panel is entitled to undertake in order to assess risk.

[33]The questioning was at times firm and persistent, particularly where the Applicant's account differed from the account previously provided to professionals or recorded in the dossier. However, that firmness was directed to matters plainly relevant to risk, including the Applicant's insight into his offending, the consistency of his narrative, and the implications of that narrative for risk formulation. It did not amount to badgering, nor did it convey prejudgment.

[34]Importantly, the audio demonstrates that the Applicant engaged meaningfully with the questioning, clarified his answers, and was able to provide further detail when pressed. Where the panel intervened to manage the Applicant's responses, this was done to maintain focus and relevance, rather than to curtail the giving of evidence. I am not satisfied that the Applicant was confused, overborne, or prevented from answering questions as he wished.

[35]I also attach weight to the fact that the Applicant was legally represented throughout both hearings. No objection was taken at the time to the manner of questioning, no application was made for an adjustment or intervention, and no concern was raised in closing submissions about procedural unfairness or the manner in which the panel had conducted either hearing. While this is not determinative, it is a relevant factor when assessing, objectively, whether the proceedings were unfair.

[36]The audio of the May 2025 hearing further demonstrates that the panel was alive to issues of fairness as they arose. Although the questioning was probing, the Applicant remained calm throughout, did not appear confused, and answered questions directly and with increasing detail. When the panel retired to consider the evidence it had heard, it offered the legal representative an opportunity to take further instructions. The legal representative raised a concern as to whether the Applicant's revised account reflected willing acceptance rather than acceptance under pressure. The panel did not accept that the Applicant had misunderstood the line of questioning, noting that his responses went beyond simple affirmation and involved the provision of additional detail. In those circumstances, and with the legal representative expressly conceding that an adjournment was appropriate " in terms of fairness and risk assessment ", the panel concluded that professionals should be given the opportunity to reassess risk in light of the new account.

[37]When the matter reconvened in January 2026, the Applicant asserted that he had felt under duress when giving his account at the earlier hearing and had said what he believed the panel wanted to hear. He sought to resile from the account he had given in May 2025, maintaining that he did not accept the prosecution case and reiterating his long-held position that he had not possessed a firearm. The panel noted that the Applicant had pleaded guilty, had been properly convicted, and that no basis of plea had been entered. This later evidence did not support the contention that the May 2025 hearing had been procedurally unfair but rather illustrated the Applicant's ongoing inconsistency in his accounts.

[38]Standing back, I am not satisfied that the manner in which the hearings were conducted objectively undermined the Applicant's ability to understand the questions being asked or to put his case properly. Nor am I satisfied that any feature of the questioning deprived the panel of relevant evidence or rendered the proceedings fundamentally flawed. The threshold for procedural unfairness is therefore not met. Decision

[39]For the reasons set out above, the application for reconsideration is refused. Stefan Fafinski 27 February 2026