Ihediwa, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 56 (10 March 2026) [2026] PBRA 56

PBRA
Ihediwa, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 56 (10 March 2026)
[2026] PBRA 56 · 2026-02-02
[1]This is an application by Ihediwa (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of panel member dated 2 February 2026. 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 oral hearing panel and the representations by the Secretary of State (Respondent). Request for Reconsideration[4]The application for reconsideration is dated 24 February 2026.[5]The grounds for seeking a reconsideration are set out below. Background[6]The Applicant is serving an extended sentence of imprisonment. The determinate period of the sentence is four years and six months. The extension period is five years. The details of the index offences are set out below. The Applicant was aged 21 when sentenced. He was aged 27 at the time of the panel decision. The primary index offence was sexual assault. The Applicant was also convicted of common assault and being in possession of a bladed article on two occasions. For these offences the sentences were determinate. During the course of his prison sentence the Applicant was convicted of being in possession of a weapon in custody. He pleaded guilty to this offence on 15 March 2023 and received a consecutive prison sentence of eight months. The Applicant was released automatically on 19 April 2024. His licence was revoked and he was recalled on 23 April 2024. Current parole review[7]The referral from the Respondent requested the Parole Board to consider whether the Applicant should be made subject to a direction for release. As noted below there were several adjournments in this case resulting from the fact of an outstanding Crown Court matter.[8]The panel consisted of a panel chair, the decision being on the papers. The decision was dated 2 February 2026. The panel considered a dossier and representations from the Applicant's legal adviser. The Relevant Law[9]The panel correctly sets out in its decision dated 2 February 2026 the test for release. Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)[10]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)).[11]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)).[12]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 . Irrationality[13]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.[14]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. "
[15]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) .[16]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.[17]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.[18]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[22]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.[23]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. Other[24]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.[25]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[26]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[27]The Respondent offered no representations. Discussion Grounds[28]The substantive basis for this application for reconsideration is that a decision by a single panel member, to conclude the Applicant's case by way of a paper decision pursuant to rule 21 of the Parole Board rules, was procedurally unfair, the argument being that the Applicant had a number of material disputes about the facts in this case and wished to place those matters before a panel. It is therefore argued that it was procedurally unfair to conclude the case on paper rather than to adjourn the matter.[29]The reason for the panel decision was that the Applicant has been charged with an offence of sexual assault. The victim of the alleged sexual assault was a female prison employee. The Applicant has been charged and is awaiting trial at the Crown Court. Context[30]The Applicant is serving an extended sentence of imprisonment comprising a custodial term of four years and six months and an extension period of five years. The Applicant was released automatically on 19 April 2024 and recalled on 23 April 2024. The Applicant's sentence expires in August 2029.[31]The primary index offence was a sexual assault. The Applicant approached a female while she was out walking. When the female reached a secluded area, the Applicant grabbed her by her buttock area. The victim hastened her steps. The Applicant followed and again took hold of the victim's buttock area. The victim attempted to repel the Applicant with an umbrella, which broke, and there was a struggle. The victim was grabbed by the Applicant and bent over and the Applicant tried to cover her mouth. The victim suffered some scratches. Passersby approached and the Applicant then ran away. The sentencing judge indicated that this was a planned attack in the sense that the Applicant had followed the victim for several streets and done so deliberately. The sentencing judge also indicated that alcohol or drugs were likely to be associated with the offending.[32]The Applicant was also convicted of being in possession of a bladed article, namely a knife, this offence occurred two days after the sexual assault.[33]The Applicant was also on bail at the time of the sexual assault in relation to a second offence of possessing a bladed article. He had been found with a substantial pair of scissors in his coat pocket during the course of a struggle at a job centre.[34]As noted above the Applicant was released automatically in April 2024. The Applicant was accommodated in probation Approved Premises. Whilst at the Approved Premises staff became aware of the fact that the Applicant was acting inappropriately around and towards female staff. This behaviour led to concerns on the basis of the Applicant's predatory behaviour associated with the index conviction.[35]The final decision, by the probation service, to recall the Applicant occurred in circumstances where the Applicant had returned to the Approved Premises. Staff, during a routine check, found the Applicant on the floor of his room having vomited and hardly responding. The ambulance service was called. The Applicant had apparently told the ambulance staff that he had consumed bottles of alcohol. The probation service concluded that the Applicant was not abiding by the good behaviour requirements of his licence and he was recalled. Discussion[36]As is noted above, the position in this case was that the Respondent sent the case for a review by the Parole Board to consider whether the Applicant should be released. The Applicant's referral was initially reviewed by a panel member considering the case at the MCA stage. The decision of the MCA panel member was to send the case for consideration by a Parole Board panel at an oral hearing. This was on the basis of a dispute about the circumstances of the Applicant's recall and a general need to receive evidence relating to the Applicant's risk in the future.[37]Subsequent to that decision, and before the oral hearing could take place, the Applicant was alleged to have committed a sexual assault, the victim being a prison employee. The Applicant is now awaiting trial in relation to that allegation.[38]The MCA directions in this case were issued on 30 August 2024. The alleged assault on the prison employee occurred on 14 December 2024. The Applicant was charged with sexual assault, and the matter was sent to be heard at a local magistrates' court in January 2026. The information in the dossier was that the Applicant denied the matter and elected to be tried at the Crown Court. The matter is therefore in the process of moving to the Crown Court for trial.[39]The panel chair in this case ordered a number of adjournments whilst awaiting the outcome of the police enquiry (into the assault on the prison employee) and any decision relating to charging. The panel chair indicated that should the matter result in a criminal charge and a forthcoming trial, it was highly likely that further adjournments would not be appropriate and the matter would be likely to be concluded by way of a paper decision.[40]On 11 December 2025 the panel chair issued an adjournment notice. The panel chair noted in that adjournment notice that the Parole Board had received a police report and that a charging decision by the CPS was anticipated within weeks.[41]The panel chair indicated in that adjournment notice:
" The panel concluded that there is still insufficient evidence in the current dossier to determine the appropriate means of progressing this referral. Further information is needed on the outcome of the CPS charging decision."
[42]The panel chair also indicated as follows:
" The parties are reminded that consideration may be given to a conclusion on the papers under rule 21. "
[43]The adjournment notice was marked as being due for an adjournment review on 2 February 2026.[44]The panel chair requested legal representations. The request was recorded as "Any further legal or personal representations are to be provided no later than 29 January 2026."[45]The Applicant's legal adviser provided further representations dated 29 January 2026. The representations confirmed that the Applicant had appeared in the magistrates' court, pleaded not guilty, and requested that the matter be sent to the Crown Court for trial. The representations also indicated as follows:
" It is respectfully submitted that it will be in the interests of fairness for the Parole Board to further adjourn the review at this stage, and that it would be premature for the Parole Board to conclude the review at this juncture given that the criminal proceedings remain at an early and unresolved stage."
[46]On 2 February 2026 the panel chair issued a paper decision and made no direction for release. The panel chair indicated that the reasons for the decision were: a) It was not likely that the outcome of the allegations against the Applicant would be known within four months. b) An oral hearing panel would not be able to make findings of fact on the matters which remain subject to criminal proceedings.[47]For these reasons the panel chair concluded that consideration of oral evidence would not be appropriate given the outstanding criminal charges.[48]Accordingly, the panel chair indicated that the case " is concluded under the terms of rule 21".[49]Rule 21 empowers a panel chair to direct that the case can be decided on the papers after a direction for an oral hearing in circumstances where an oral hearing is no longer necessary. The potential bases of any decision are listed in the Parole Board rules, namely(a) in the interests of justice,(b) to effectively manage a case, or(c) for such reasons the panel chair considers appropriate including where further evidence was received by the Board.[50]It is clear that the panel chair had substantial reasons for considering concluding this case. The panel chair had received further relevant evidence which was appropriate to the decision as to whether to proceed to an oral hearing, namely the ongoing criminal allegations and future trial. It would not have been in the interests of justice for a Parole Board hearing to be taking place in parallel to criminal proceedings, particularly as the allegations were of similar nature to that which led to the index offence.[51]The argument by the Applicant's legal adviser in this case is that the panel chair acted unfairly in not further adjourning the matter, to await the outcome of the criminal trial, thereby allowing for an oral hearing after the conclusion of that trial. I am not persuaded by this argument. The Parole Board generally and panel chairs in particular are obliged to ensure that Parole Board reviews are dealt with speedily and fairly. Where a criminal case is outstanding and would clearly have substantial consequences upon any decision relating to risk and release, an adjournment with no realistic prospect of a date for an oral hearing would be inappropriate and contrary to the guidance issued by the Parole Board in relation to adjournments. It is well understood that matters awaiting trial at the Crown Court are likely to be delayed for several months and no clear indication can be obtained of a concluding date for those proceedings.[52]In this case there can be no doubt that the panel chair's decision to conclude the matter on the papers was entirely reasonable and rational and procedurally correct. Adjourning the case with no realistic prospect of a concluding date for any Crown Court proceedings would not be consistent with the requirement upon the Parole Board to undertake a speedy review of referrals from the Respondent.[53]So far as the decision itself is concerned the panel chair concluded that there were clearly unresolved and important issues relating to the Applicant's risk, particularly his risk of serious harm to females. Although the criminal charge had not been concluded, in my determination the panel chair could reasonably take account of the fact that there had been both an allegation and evidence sufficient to warrant a criminal charge in assessing the risk at the time of the panel decision. I do not therefore find that the decision of the panel member could be characterised as irrational in the sense set out above.[54]The Applicant's legal adviser also submits that the panel member misapplied the principles of the case of Pearce [2023] UKSC 13 , the basis of the submission being that:
" The panel erred by making findings on key features of [the Applicant's] case and attributing weight to those findings without taking the steps required in accordance with Supreme Court authority."
[55]Although the Applicant's legal adviser suggests that the panel member made findings in relation to the allegations, a careful analysis of the wording of the panel's decision indicates that the panel made no findings of fact. However, the panel placed weight upon the serious nature of the index offences, the further conviction in custody (the Applicant had been convicted of being in possession of a weapon in prison), the allegations in the criminal courts and the revocation of the Applicant's licence. The panel member had also appropriately invited representations on behalf of the Applicant which were taken into account. The Supreme Court judgement clearly anticipates a situation where findings of fact cannot be positively concluded but, having regard to public safety, allegations may be taken into account and given such weight as the panel considers appropriate (see paragraph 87 (vii) of Pearce ). Decision[56]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 10 March 2026