Mead, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 52 (03 March 2026) [2026] PBRA 52
[1]This is an application by Mead ("the Applicant") for reconsideration of a decision of a Panel of the Parole Board ("the Panel"), at an oral hearing which took place on 16 January 2026, 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 dossier provided by the Secretary of State ("the Respondent") which now contains 755 numbered pages; · The Panel's decision dated 21 January 2026; · The application for reconsideration ("the application") made by solicitors, on behalf of the Applicant. Request for Reconsideration[4]The application is dated 9 February 2026.[5]Reconsideration is said to be sought on the basis of(i) procedural unfairness and(ii) that the decision to recommend to the Respondent that the Applicant be transferred to open prison conditions was irrational and " could also amount to " an error of law. I will consider these submissions in detail within the Discussion section of my decision. Background[6]The Applicant is now aged 54. On 18 May 2009 he received, upon his guilty plea, a sentence of imprisonment for public protection for an offence of arson being reckless as to whether life would be endangered. The minimum term was set at two years less time spent on remand in custody and the tariff expiry date was in October 2010.[7]The Applicant committed this offence when he was heavily intoxicated and set fire to his own home .[8]The Applicant has an extensive criminal record of convictions which include wounding x 2, actual bodily harm x 4, robbery x 2 and having a firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence. He has a previous conviction for arson in 1992 committed when he was on bail. He also has a number of convictions for acquisitive crimes and has a poor record of compliance with community supervision/licence requirements.[9]The Applicant was released on licence in July 2015 and was recalled in September 2020 after he used a social media site where he made contact with a paedophile vigilante group who were posing as a 14-year-old girl. He engaged in sexualised conversations and sent a large number of sexual photographs.[10]On 9 February 2022 he was sentenced to six months imprisonment for attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child.[11]In addition, when the Applicant was on licence, an adult female friend had reported that he was " pestering " her, something which he continues to deny. Current parole review[12]The Applicant's case was referred to the Parole Board by the Respondent in July 2022 to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to direct his release or, in the alternative, that he be transferred to open prison conditions. This was the second review following his recall to prison.[13]The Applicant has diagnoses of autism and learning difficulties. The hearing commenced in November 2025 when some evidence was heard, although not from the Applicant. It was then adjourned until January 2026 in order that, in the interests of justice and the Applicant, the hearing could be conducted face to face at the prison where he was being held.[14]In addition, the Panel gave leave for the neurodiversity support manager at the prison, to attend the hearing in order to assist the Applicant.[15]The case was allocated to a three-person Panel which comprised two independent members, one of whom chaired the Panel, and a psychiatrist member.[16]The Applicant was represented by his solicitor who sought a direction for release.[17]At the hearing in January 2026 evidence was given by: a) The Prison Offender Manager; b) The Community Offender Manager; c) The Applicant; d) A Psychologist instructed by HMPPS (the psychologist).[18]Although the professional witnesses recommended release, the Panel declined to direct this but did recommend to the Respondent that the Applicant be progressed to open prison conditions. The Relevant Law[19]The Panel correctly sets out the test for release in its decision.[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)). Procedural unfairness[21]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.[22]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.[23]The overriding objective is to ensure that the Applicant's case was dealt with justly. Reconsideration as a discretionary remedy[24]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[25]By email dated 17 February 2026 the Public Protection Group confirmed on behalf of the Respondent that he provides no representations in response to the application . Discussion Procedural Unfairness[26]The Applicant submits that the Panel failed to adapt their communication style to his level of understanding when he was being questioned and it failed to take into account his neurodiversity needs and learning difficulties when he was being questioned.[27]Through his solicitors the Applicant states that he fully intended to answer all questions in evidence but at some of the questions, he felt lost and overwhelmed and answered, "as best as he could."[28]I have naturally given anxious consideration to these submissions and, accordingly, I called for the audio recording of the hearing and, as I indicated to the Applicant's solicitors, listened to the relevant parts which were, in my view, the introductions, the whole of the evidence of the Applicant and his solicitor's closing submissions.[29]Unfortunately, the solicitor for the Applicant does not provide examples of the ways in which the Panel did not adapt their communication style to the Applicant's level of understanding nor how exactly they failed to take into account his particular needs. Also, the submissions do not indicate how the Panel should have proceeded and in what ways they could, and should, have more appropriately communicated with, and put questions to, the Applicant.[30]At the hearing the Applicant had the assistance of the neurodiversity support manager who, during opening introductions, confirmed that she was present to make sure that his reasonable needs were met and I note that she saw no need to intervene during the course of his evidence nor is there any indication that she has sought to alert the Applicant's solicitor to any concerns which she had in relation to the manner in which the Panel put their questions to him.[31]In addition, it is to be noted that this application based on procedural unfairness is not supported by any statement or letter of concern from the neurodiversity support manager .[32]During the introductory remarks the solicitor for the Applicant drew the Panel's attention to the difficulty which the Applicant had on occasion with eye contact, describing it as " a condition ", but raised no other issues with the Panel about his particular needs.[33]Before the hearing commenced the Applicant was reminded by the Panel Chair that, if he needed a break at any time, he should so indicate and, if at any time he wished to speak privately with his solicitor, this would be facilitated.[34]I do not intend to analyse the Applicant's evidence in great detail. When answering questions from the independent member, he was able to do so in considerable detail and, in my view, he spoke in an articulate and fluent fashion. He was asked open questions and was assisted in giving his best evidence.[35]When it came to questioning with regard to his sexual offending, he was obviously and, not unnaturally, more uncomfortable and at times presented as defensive and combative and this was certainly the case in relation to the adult female whom he was alleged to have pestered; however, he never appeared to be at a loss for words and, once the questioning moved on to examples of his seeking assistance during his time in custody and his plans for the future, he was able, in my view, to give a full account of himself.[36]Subsequent questioning from the psychiatrist and the Chair focused on his sexual offending and was obviously quite challenging but, again, he sought to engage with the questions put and at no time were objections raised on his behalf by either his solicitor or by the neurodiversity support manager as to the Panel's communication style nor was it suggested to them that they were ignoring his neurodiverse and learning needs.[37]As the solicitor conceded and as the Panel recorded (paragraph 4.1), the Applicant did have " difficulties talking about sex " but he did not appear to be confused and, when asked by the Chair at the conclusion of the Applicant's evidence whether he had anything to raise, his solicitor confirmed that he did not.[38]I note that in closing the Applicant's solicitor submitted to the Panel that, as a result of hearing from the Applicant, they now had a better insight into his behaviours, both in the community and in prison, and that, while talking about his sexual needs and urges had been difficult for him, it would have been the same for anyone. Finally, the solicitor suggested that the Applicant had handled, what the solicitor described as, the high-pressure situation of the hearing admirably.[39]It is understandable that the Applicant should feel disappointment at the outcome of the hearing, particularly as there was unanimous professional support for release, and that, in retrospect, he now feels a sense of being overwhelmed and to have not given of his best while being questioned. However, it is clear that the Panel were well aware of the Applicant's particular needs (for instance from the neurodiversity support manager 's email-dossier pp.734-5) and conducted the hearing, accordingly, adjourning so that he was able to see the Panel members face-to-face and ensuring that he had the support of the neurodiversity support manager .[40]Accordingly, having given proper consideration to the application and having listened with care to the relevant parts of the audiotape, I am satisfied that this application fails to disclose any procedural unfairness and that the Applicant is unable to put before me any matters or arguments which would justify a direction for reconsideration. Irrationality[41]A decision with regard to a recommendation for open conditions is not eligible for reconsideration. Decision[42]I find that the Application is without merit and, for the reasons I have given and applying the appropriate tests, I do not consider that the decision was procedurally unfair and the application for reconsideration is, therefore, refused. Peter H. F Jones 03 March 2026