Hunt, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 55 (06 March 2026) [2026] PBRA 55

PBRA
Hunt, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 55 (06 March 2026)
[2026] PBRA 55 · 2025-12-19
[1]This is an application by Hunt (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of a single member (MCA) panel dated 19 December 2025. The decision of the panel was 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 the dossier, the application for reconsideration drafted by the Applicant's legal adviser, the decision of the panel member and the representations by the Secretary of State (the Respondent). Request for Reconsideration[4]The application for reconsideration is dated 12 February 2026.[5]The grounds for seeking a reconsideration are set out below.[6]I asked for further information in this case. I requested that information be obtained from the Respondent relating to the ongoing therapeutic work being undertaken by the Applicant. I was also helpfully provided with information from the Applicant's legal adviser relating to the progress of the ongoing therapeutic work. Background[7]The index offence in this case is summarised below. The Applicant was aged 33 at the time of sentence. He was 45 at the time of the panel member decision. The index offences were: i) Causing/inciting a male child under 16 years to engage in sexual activity, 12 years (four years plus eight year extension). ii) Possessing an indecent image of a child, one year concurrent. iii) Causing/inciting prostitution or pornography involving a child aged 13-17 years, two years concurrent. iv) Breach of a sexual offences prevention order, two years concurrent.[8]The determinate sentences had expired at the time of the panel decision. The Applicant's extended sentence expires in October 2026. The Applicant was returned to custody following recall on 23 November 2018. Current parole review[9]The referral by the Secretary of State requested the Parole Board to consider whether the Applicant should be subject to a direction for release. The single panel member was considering the third review since recall.[10]The panel hearing was dated 19 December 2025. As noted above the panel consisted of a single MCA Parole Board member. The panel member considered a dossier consisting of 126 pages. There were representations by the Applicant's legal adviser which were considered. The Relevant Law[11]The panel correctly sets out in its decision letter dated 19 December 2025 the test for release. 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 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. 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. 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.[25]In the cases of Osborn v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61 , the Supreme Court comprehensively reviewed the basis on which the Parole Board should consider applications for an oral hearing. Their conclusions are set out at paragraph 2 of the judgment. The Supreme Court did not decide that there should always be an oral hearing but said there should be if fairness to the prisoner requires one. The Supreme Court indicated that an oral hearing is likely to be necessary where the Board is in any doubt whether to direct one; they should be ordered where there is a dispute on the facts; where the panel needs to see and hear from the prisoner in order to properly assess risk and where it is necessary in order to allow the prisoner to properly put his case. When deciding whether to direct an oral hearing the Board should take into account the prisoner's legitimate interest in being able to participate in a decision with important implications for him. It is not necessary that there should be a realistic prospect of progression for an oral hearing to be directed.[26]In Oyston [2000] PLR 45 , at paragraph 47 Lord Bingham said:
" It seems to me generally desirable that the Board should identify in broad terms the matters judged by the Board as pointing towards and against a continuing risk of offending and the Board's reasons for striking the balance that it does. Needless to say, the letter should summarise the considerations which have in fact led to the final decision. It would be wrong to prescribe any standard form of Decision Letter and it would be wrong to require elaborate or impeccable standards of draftsmanship. "
Reconsideration as a discretionary remedy[27]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[28]The Respondent indicated, in a reply to the application for reconsideration, that an attempt had been made to find the exact dates of the Applicant's engagement with eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy. The report received by the Respondent was that the therapist was on leave, and that the only response that could be provided was an estimated timeframe. It was thought that the therapy would be completed by early August (2026).[29]As noted below there was more detailed information from other parties. Grounds and Discussion Ground 1[30]The Applicant's legal adviser submits that the panel decision not to direct release in this case was irrational and procedurally unfair because the panel declined to direct an oral hearing which could have been listed after June 2026. Context[31]As noted above the Applicant is serving an extended sentence of imprisonment. The brief facts of the index offence are that the Applicant met the victim who was a male aged between 14 and 15 years. He met the boy in a computer games workshop. There was then contact with the boy online and subsequently a meeting and sexual activity involving penetration. The Applicant was also convicted of being in possession of indecent photographs.[32]During his prison sentence the Applicant had completed a thinking skills programme and two programmes relating to sexual offending.[33]He was released automatically and had a condition not to frequent locations where children were likely to congregate. In breach of the condition he in fact made regular visits to an amusement centre and was seen talking to children. He was recalled as he had not been honest with supervising staff about his movements and whereabouts.[34]The Applicant initially denied breaching his licence conditions saying that he entered the amusement centre because he wanted to play on slot machines. Later in his recall period he accepted that he had entered the amusement centre to facilitate approaching children. Referral (2024)[35]The Applicant's case was referred to the Parole Board in December 2024. An oral hearing took place and the Applicant gave evidence. At that time options in relation to risk reduction programmes had been considered. However, by the time of that hearing the Applicant had insufficient time on his sentence to undertake any suggested treatment programmes. He had been offered sessions dealing with anxiety and a short number of consolidation sessions referring back to work he had undertaken during his initial sentence. The (2024) panel had received evidence from a psychologist who had indicated that there was limited evidence that the Applicant had gained from programmes he had undertaken in the past. The psychologist took the view that the Applicant, at that time, had limited insight into his risk and limited awareness of potential risk scenarios. The Applicant's community offender manager (COM) had initially supported a direction for release to allow the Applicant time to progress on licence, however by the time of the oral hearing the COM's position had changed. The COM did not recommend release at that time. The (2024) panel's overall conclusion was that the Applicant did not have sufficient insight or clarity into the risk that he presented to children or the ability to self-manage his risk. It was therefore concluded that his risk was such that it remained necessary in order to protect the public from serious harm that he be detained. Referral (2025)[36]As noted above the Applicant's case was referred once again by the Respondent in November 2025 to consider whether the Applicant should be subject to a direction for release. At the time of this referral the Applicant had not undertaken any offence focused work since recall, however he had begun EMDR therapy. The panel member was informed by the COM that the therapy was scheduled to be completed in June 2026. The panel member was not minded to defer an oral hearing until a future date beyond June 2026. In those circumstances the panel member assessed the position as at December 2025 and concluded that the test for release was not met at that time.[37]As noted above the basis of the first ground submitted by the Applicant's legal adviser is that the panel member's decision not to defer the case until beyond June 2026 for an oral hearing was procedurally unfair. Discussion[38]The Parole Board issue guidance, which is available to the public, relating to its procedures. Paragraph 17 of the Parole Board MCA Guidance V3.0 addresses the question of sending a case to an oral hearing which is to be listed after a specified date. The guidance states as follows:17.1 A case can be sent to oral hearing with a direction that it is listed after a certain date, for a specific purpose which is relevant for the completion of an effective risk assessment. Valid reasons for this might include: ...• Enabling the prisoner to complete a course/intervention they have already started within 4 months, for which indication of good progress is needed, and the outcomes will bear on risk assessment. ...17.2 The panel will need to balance the requirement for a 'speedy' review of detention with fairness to the prisoner. If a short delay will enable a much better-informed decision to be made, then it can be justified. However, panels must be careful to ensure that cases are not delayed indefinitely or for lengthy periods against a constantly fluctuating backdrop, or that repeat adjournments take place.[39]As noted above the guidance anticipates that the maximum period for a deferral should be four months. It is clear also that the anticipated intervention should have a clear termination date and a reasonably clear indication that at the termination date the case will be ready for consideration by an oral hearing panel.[40]In this case there were three factors to consider. The first was a completion of therapy. The Applicant was undergoing the therapy at the time of the decision by the single member. The second matter would be a report from the therapist outlining the work completed and any therapeutic gains from that work. Thirdly there would need to be an assessment by the Applicant's COM of any progress made (in relation to risk) as a result of completing the intervention. The Applicant's COM would inevitably be directed to provide a further report with a recommendation based upon that assessment.[41]Following this application for reconsideration I have sought further information from the parties relating to the intervention work which is being undertaken by the Applicant, in particular the situation regarding the completion of both the intervention and the report by the therapist.[42]In response to this request, the indication from the therapist was that the intervention work would be completed by the end of March 2026. The information from the POM was that the therapist would then require 4 to 6 weeks to prepare and submit a report upon the therapeutic work. The representations from the Applicant's legal adviser, who had spoken to the therapist, was that the end of treatment report would be available by the end of May 2026.[43]There would then be a period of time required by the professionals, in particular the COM, to consider the outcome of the therapeutic intervention and to prepare an updated report. A COM would usually require approximately four weeks to provide an updated report.[44]The panel member who made the decision in this case had been given information that indicated that the intervention would be completed in June 2026. The subsequent enquiries indicate that the completion, as indicated above, will be sooner than June. However, the reality is that, as anticipated by the panel member, any oral hearing (if directed) would not have been able to be listed until at least June 2026.[45]As indicated above the panel member made the decision in December 2025. At the time of making the decision (even without the updated information) the earliest date for listing of this case would have been some six months from the date of the panel decision. It is argued on behalf of the Applicant that the decision not to defer the case, and to allow it to be listed in the future, was procedurally unfair.[46]It is submitted by the Applicant's legal adviser that the application by the Applicant was not an application to adjourn and delay the review but was an application to send the case for an oral hearing but to delay the oral hearing to await the outcome of the intervention and the subsequent reports. However, as noted above, at the time of the decision by the panel member the Applicant had not completed intervention work and follow-up work was required. The purpose of the MCA process is to ensure that cases which are sent for an oral hearing are indeed ready for that hearing to take place (or will be ready within four months). As noted above the procedural requirements set out under the Parole Board rules and guidance indicate that a delay in excess of four months until the case is thought to be ready for hearing is in most cases excessive and a decision should therefore be made at the MCA stage as to whether to direct release or not.[47]In this case there was the added issue of the Applicant's sentence end date. It would have been highly likely that the listing of the case would have been within a very short period before the Applicant was due to be released. This would clearly impact upon the potential for a realistic risk management plan and licence conditions.[48]Parole Board guidance is not legally binding upon Parole Board members, however the purpose of the guidance is to ensure proportionality and fairness to all prisoners and to ensure that a speedy review (consistent with Article 5 of the ECHR) is undertaken. The guidance also ensures that all parties are aware of the basis upon which decisions will be made and therefore ensures consistency. In the circumstances therefore I am not persuaded that the decision of the MCA member amounted to a procedural irregularity as is argued on the Applicant's behalf. Ground 2[49]The Applicant's legal adviser argues that the decision by the panel member was irrational, firstly because the MCA panel member misunderstood that the application by the Applicant was not an adjournment of the review but a deferment of the date upon which the oral hearing would be listed until the completion of the intervention and post-intervention reports. Secondly, that the panel member had insufficient evidence to conclude that the test for release was not met and thirdly, that the Applicant had made progress which was not fully considered by the panel member. Discussion[50]The position of the MCA panel member was to consider whether the referral should be concluded on the basis of the papers or whether it should be sent for an oral hearing. A decision to send a case to an oral hearing on a deferred date, is considered in the light of the guidance which is set out above. A case where intervention work is ongoing and the outcome of that intervention work would not be available for a period in excess of four months is likely to be a case that is unsuitable for deferral. As indicated above the panel member was required to balance the need for a speedy review of detention against the need for fairness to the Applicant. As noted above I am not persuaded that the panel member was procedurally unfair in concluding that the case should not be delayed to await the outcome of the intervention and subsequent reporting.[51]The panel member was therefore required to reach a decision as to whether the Applicant (at the time of the MCA review) should be directed for release. In the light of the fact that all parties agreed that the Applicant needed to undertake further intervention work to manage his risk, and that he was in fact undertaking that work, the conclusion of the panel member that the Applicant had not (at the time of the panel decision) met the test for release does not in my view amount to irrationality. The Applicant's COM had noted that the Applicant had completed no detailed work specifically addressing risk until undertaking the EMDR therapy. There was therefore no professional support for release. The Applicant had resorted to risky behaviour involving potential approaches to children fairly soon after his initial release from prison. The panel member was obliged to measure risk over the medium and long term. It was clear that although the Applicant's insight and consequential thinking was improving, there remained serious concerns about his ability to manage his risks in the community. For these reasons I do not find that the decision of the panel member not to direct release could be characterised as irrational. Decision[52]For the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the decision was irrational or procedurally unfair and accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused. HH Stephen Dawson 06 March 2026