Odegbune, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 6 (19 January 2026) [2026] PBRA 6
PBRA
Odegbune, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 6 (19 January 2026)
[2026] PBRA 6 · 2025-11-10
[1]This is an application by Odegbune (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of an oral hearing panel dated 10 November 2025 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 oral hearing decision, the dossier consisting of 615 pages and the application for reconsideration. Request for Reconsideration[4]The application for reconsideration is dated 2 December 2025. It has been drafted by legal representatives on behalf of the Applicant. It submits that the decision contained an error of law and was irrational.[5]The decision is supplemented by written arguments to which reference will be made in the Discussion section below. Background[6]The Applicant received a sentence of life imprisonment on 20 April 2012 following a conviction for murder and conspiring/wounding/inflicting grievous bodily harm. His tariff was originally set at 18 years but has been reduced on two occasions and is now 15 years. His tariff expired on 21 May 2025.[7]The Applicant was 18 years old at the time of sentencing and is now 32 years old. Current parole review[8]The Applicant's case was referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State (the Respondent) in August 2025 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 Secretary of State whether the Applicant should be transferred to open conditions.[9]The case proceeded to an oral hearing via videoconference on 5 November 2025. The panel consisted of three independent members. It heard oral evidence from the Applicant together with his Prison Offender Officer (both the new and previous ones) and the Community Offender Manager. The Applicant was legally 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 10 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)).[14]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 15.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. 16.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. " 17.In R(on the application of Wells) -v- Parole Board 2019 EWHC 2710 (Admin) 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). 18.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. 19.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. 20.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. Error of law[21]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.[22]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 Secretary of State 23.The Respondent has submitted no representations in response to this application. Discussion Ground 1 - Error of Law 24.The Applicant submits that the decision contained an error of law. It is argued that the error of law is in the application of the wrong statutory test. That there is insufficient reasoning as to the future risk of general violence, or explanation as to what is more than minimal. It is submitted that the panel appears to have applied a " no risk " test rather than a no more than minimal risk of serious harm test, which amounts to an error of law. 25.Reading the decision as a whole, it appears that the grounds are seeking reasons for reasons and selectively picking on passages on which to make complaint. The panel sets out the correct test and there is no evidence that it was not applied. The Applicant's index offence is the most serious of offences and, whilst he may not have used violence or weapons throughout his sentence, he has acquired adjudications for failing to comply with conditions. He also has risk factors identified in the OASys report including thinking, behaviour and attitudes to offending. The panel also noted as aggravating his risk factors, grievance thinking, reckless behaviour, loyalty to others, 'pack mentality' and poor problem solving and consequential thinking skills. 26.The application seeks to minimise the breaches of licence and stresses the lack of recent violence. The panel is clear that whilst there has been no recent violence there remain serious risk factors and the details of not one but a second breach soon after the first, set out in the decision provide sufficient evidence for the conclusion regarding future risk. The panel was entitled and correct in its analysis to come to the conclusion that based on the index offence and his continuing risk and his non-compliance, the risk the Applicant posed was more than a minimal one. It is difficult to see what else the application wished the panel to state in the constant reference to the panel having failed to identify what would amount to more than minimal. It is not for the panel to speculate as to the type of harm that may be caused. This is an Applicant who was involved in pre-planned group attack on a young person, who on his own admission played a main role, who the reports find exhibits thinking, behaviour and attitudes linked to offending which place him at risk, whose grievance thinking and, pack mentality, group loyalty and poor thinking skills place him at risk of reoffending and if he does so, of causing serious harm. His OGRS(Offender Group Reconviction Scale) score places him at medium risk of reoffending and if he does so, at high risk of causing serious harm to members of the public. No more detail is required from the panel as to what specific minimum risk may be caused and failing to give that detail does not amount to an error of law. 27.The grounds submit that the panel in suggesting that the Applicant's ability to show " sustained progress " may enable his representatives to apply for the next review to be brought forward is an indication of the application of a progress based test rather than a public protection test. This passage was not evidence of the panel applying any test whatsoever, it was simply a statement of encouragement to the Applicant. To suggest, as the application does, that this approach is wrong in law and has the effect that the Applicant is detained indefinitely until he achieves an " arbitrary level of progress " is to have misread the decision. The panel had noted the many positive factors to the Applicant's credit, however the panel could not ignore the very serious recent behaviour entries leading to adjudications, nor could the panel ignore the COM's evidence which no longer supported release but considered that the Applicant required further testing. Sustained progress, in the sense of progress without negative entries or adjudications could be evidence of reduced risk. This comment from the panel, at the end of the decision, cannot in any respect be elevated to the level of a public protection test. 28.None of the matters raised amounts to an error of law and this ground therefore fails. Ground 2 - Irrationality 29.The application submits that the panel, despite recognising the insufficiency of evidence regarding the ROTL breach, nevertheless relied on the " unknowns " to cast a shadow over the assessment of risk thus adopting a " no smoke without fire " approach, that it failed to provide a coherent reason why it relied on the COM's evidence rather than that of the POM supporting release, that in dealing with the question of relationships the panel's reason was based on unexplained evidential gaps and leaps in reasoning. 30.These grounds are an attempt to reargue matters already put before the panel at the hearing and properly, fairly and comprehensively considered by the panel. It is a fact that in the absence of explanation the panel could not make findings as to the behaviour over the totality of the ROTL. Equally, what the panel could not do, was to assume good conduct in the absence of evidence and what the panel very fairly did not do was to assume bad conduct in the absence of that evidence. There is no basis to the claim that the panel adopted a " no smoke without fire " analysis, an allegation which is made on the basis of minimisation of the breaches in the application and in submissions. 31.It is clear from the decision why the panel preferred the evidence of the COM - the Applicant had not been entirely open with the POM in advance of his meeting with a woman alleging to be his ex-partner, he had not been robustly challenged by the POM and, like the COM, the panel viewed the breaches of the ROTLs seriously. 32.With regard to the relationships the panel found much of the Applicant's evidence to be implausible, a conclusion which was not based on any gaps or leaps in reasoning but on the very concrete evidence that was presented to the panel. 33.None of the matters raised in the grounds identifies any irrationality in the reasoning or conclusions of the panel and this ground therefore fails. Decision 34.For the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the decision was irrational or contained any error of law accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused. Barbara Mensah 19 January 2026