Iqbal, Application for Reconsideration by the Secretary of State for Justice [2026] PBRA 64 (23 March 2026) [2026] PBRA 64

PBRA

Iqbal, Application for Reconsideration by the Secretary of State for Justice [2026] PBRA 64 (23 March 2026)

[2026] PBRA 64 · 2025-12-16

[1]This is an application by the Secretary of State for Justice ('the Applicant') for reconsideration of a decision of a panel of the Parole Board directing the release on licence of Iqbal ('the Respondent') that decision following a hearing on 16 December 2025.

[2]The Respondent is now 44 years old. He was released from prison in November 2021 by the direction of a previous panel following an oral hearing held in June 2021. He was recalled to prison in April 2023 for alleged breaches of conditions attached to his licence. The ensuing parole process has been much delayed. Hearings were adjourned for various reasons which included a direction to obtain and later have clarified expert evidence regarding potentially significant breaches of his licence relating to alleged misuse use of a telephone and the internet. Further delay was caused to allow the Respondent to complete work with his community offender manager (COM) at the suggestion of and mentored by the prison psychologist, the purpose being to seek an improvement in his relationship with his COM.

[3]In June 2025 following an oral hearing in April 2025, a duty member of the Parole Board issued directions because the panel then conducting the review were unable to reach a decision. A fresh panel (the hearing panel - 'the Panel') were put in place to conduct the review thereafter. The Panel was not informed of the reason for the previous panel's inability to reach a decision. No point regarding this issue is taken by the parties in this application. As the designated reconsideration member given conduct of this application, I make it clear that I am not aware of the circumstances that led to a change in the panel's constitution.

[4]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

[5]I have considered the application on the papers. They are considerable in volume and include: a) The application for reconsideration and submissions as well as several sets of supplemental submissions from the parties' representatives produced between 26 June 2024 and 23 December 2025 . b) The dossier itself which consists of 1,171 pages which includes a detailed summary of the evidence given in respect of alleged breaches of licence conditions; a schedule of agreed facts; five experts reports and a schedule of the evidence given by the expert witnesses. The Application

[6]In this case the application is on the sole ground of irrationality. The arguments deployed on behalf of the Applicant and the Respondent will be discussed in detail below.

[7]The grounds for seeking a reconsideration of the decision in this case are in very general terms that the Panel's decision is irrational on three bases: a) That the decision fails sufficiently or at all to take into account the Respondent's dishonesty. b) That the decision affords improper weight to the Extremism Risk Guidelines Assessments; and c) That the decision irrationally concludes that the entirety of the proposed Risk Management Plan (RMP) was not required in order to meet the Codified Public Protection Test.

[8]The substance of the hearing before the Panel and this application rests upon a detailed consideration of several allegations of misconduct by the Respondent while living in the community amounting cumulatively to what are alleged to be significant breaches of Licence Conditions which in due course led to his recall to prison and which should not in the submission of the Applicant have led to a decision by the Panel to direct his release. Background

[9]Prior to the Respondent's appearance before the court in April 2013, when he was aged 31, he had no previous convictions. He pleaded guilty on a Basis of Plea which was not contested by the prosecution, to an offence of Engaging in Conduct in Preparation for acts of Terrorism contrary to section 5(1) of the Terrorism Act 2006. He appeared before the court with three others and received an extended sentence of 16 years and three months, of which the custodial element was 11 years and three months and the extension period was five years.

[10]From reports before the Judge, it seems that he had become involved in serious offending when at a low ebb in his life. His family had recently moved from Location A to Location B, where he had little contact with anyone outside his immediate family. He had dropped out of college in about 2003 and applied to join the armed forces but was rejected on medical grounds. He worked for a time in warehouses and then qualified as an HGV driver, at which he worked until his arrest.

[11]Under the influence of a workmate, he was encouraged to become more overtly Islamic by growing his beard and taking Islam more seriously. Over time he developed a growing sense that Muslims were being treated unjustly. He began researching Islamist groups online. He made trips to Pakistan. He assisted one of his co-accused to travel to Pakistan with a view to being trained to support the Taliban. He was contemplating moving his (second) wife and family which by then included two daughters to live in Pakistan. Back in England he discussed with a co-defendant making an improvised explosive device for use against a Territorial Army base. He investigated acquiring a firearm, in order he said to protect himself from the activities of the English Defence League. He had saved some £10,000 in cash which he proposed donating to the Taliban or their supporters. While there was no evidence that any practical steps had been taken to carry out attacks on domestic targets the sentencing Judge was in no doubt that the Respondent's discussions with others were serious. Indeed, the Judge considered that the Respondent's involvement was of a different order to that of his three co-defendants in part because he was significantly older than they were and because, as the Judge found, he was instrumental in facilitating and arranging for one of his co-defendants to travel to Pakistan to receive terrorist training.

[12]The Respondent's activism continued after the police had taken material from his home in September 2011 as they did on a subsequent visit in April 2012. He was found to have downloaded electronic files containing practical instructions for terrorist activities including " Thirty-Nine Ways to support Jihad ". The Judge noted that the nature, persistence and extent of the Respondent's involvement in different types of possible terrorist activity satisfied him that the Respondent was indeed someone who posed a significant threat to the public of causing serious harm.

[13]The 2021 Panel observed that "your commitment to engaging in acts of terrorism was such that despite knowing that your physical and digital activities were under surveillance, you continued to download electronic material containing practical instructions and guidance for terrorist attacks."

[14]On 2 November 2021, following release on licence, he moved into Approved Premises. On 7 December 2022 the Respondent was permitted to return home to his wife and children. He had difficulties gaining steady work. In April 2023 he had just started a permanent job when he was recalled back to prison later that same month.

[15]In early 2023 it had been agreed that he could have permission to use a laptop. On 26 January 2023 the police forensically copied the hard drive of his laptop. This provided what is described as a " baseline " image of what was contained on the laptop at that time. Monitoring software was then installed. He was issued with the laptop on 8 February 2023. On 16 March 2023 internet monitoring of software alerted police to a number of what were regarded as concerning searches being carried out on the laptop. On 17 March 2023 the Respondent was requested via phone by police to attend with police and probation and to bring his laptop. Later that day the laptop was handed over to the police for examination. These events and subsequent investigation of the contents of the laptop became of central importance in these proceedings and will be further examined in due course. The Relevant Law The test for release on licence

[16]Under the Codified Public Protection Test the panel could only direct the Respondent's release on licence if they were satisfied that his continued confinement in prison was no longer necessary for the protection of the public, and they could only be so satisfied if they considered that (if the prisoner were no longer confined in prison) there would be no more than a minimal risk of his committing a further offence so serious that it might result in serious harm to somebody else.

[17]It is important to bear in mind that following the cases of Johnson

[2022] EWHC 1282 (Admin)

and Dich

[2023] EWHC 945 (Admin)

it is clear that the test for release does not include a temporal element. In other words, a panel's consideration of risk may go beyond conditional release dates (CRD) and sentence expiry dates (SED). Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)

[18]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)).

[19]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)). The definition of irrationality

[20]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.

[21]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. "

[22]In R (on the application of Wells) -v- Parole Board

2019 EWHC 2710

(Admin) Mr Justice Saini set out in paragraph 3 of his judgment 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) .

[23]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.

[24]What is established by these authorities, which are of course binding on the Parole Board, is that it is not for me when deciding an irrationality challenge on a reconsideration, to substitute my view for that of the oral hearing panel who had the opportunity to see the witnesses and evaluate all of the evidence. Therefore, it is important that it should be clearly understood that it is only if I decide that the decision of the panel did not come within the range of reasonable conclusions that could be reached on all of the evidence, that I should allow this application on the ground of irrationality.

[25]Panels of the board are wholly independent and are not obliged to adopt opinions and recommendations of professional witnesses. In the case of DSD the court made it perfectly clear that in deciding whether a decision of the panel was irrational due deference had to be given to the expertise of the panel in making decisions relating to parole. A panel's duty is clear and it is to make its own risk assessment and to evaluate the likely effectiveness of any proposed RMP. That will require a panel to test and assess all the evidence and decide what evidence it accepts and what evidence it rejects. While the views of professional witnesses must of course be properly considered by a panel deciding on release, the panel is not bound to accept their assessment. It must however make clear in its reasons why it is disagreeing with the assessment of the witness or witnesses.

[26]The giving of reasons by a decision maker was described in Breen v Amalgamated Engineering Union

[1971] 2 QB 75

as "one of the fundamentals of good administration". When reasons are provided, they may indicate that a decision maker has made an error or failed to take a relevant factor into account. As I understand the principles of public law engaged in this application, an absence of reasons in a decision does not automatically give rise to an inference that the decision maker has no good reason for the decision. Neither is it necessary for every factor to be dealt with explicitly for the reason to be legally adequate in public law. The way in which a panel fulfils its duty to give reasons will vary, depending on the facts and circumstances of any particular case. For example, if the panel is going to reject the unanimous evidence of professional witnesses then detailed reasons will be required. In the case of Wells the court observed: "The duty to give reasons is heightened when the decision maker is faced with expert evidence which the panel appears, implicitly at least, to be rejecting".

[27]In DSD the court considered the manner in which a panel of the Board is obliged to undertake the evaluation of risk as follows:

"117. The evaluation of risk, central to the Parole Board's function is in part inquisitorial. It is fully entitled, indeed obliged, to undertake a proactive role in examining all available evidence and the submission advanced...The individual members of a panel, through their training and experience, possess or have acquired skills and expertise in the complex realm of risk assessment. "118. The courts have emphasised on numerous occasions the importance and complexity of this role, and how slow they should be to interfere with the exercise judgment in this specialist domain..." "133. A risk assessment in a complex case is multi-factorial, multi-dimensional and at the end of the day quintessentially a matter of judgment for the panel itself."

[28]It follows that when considering the decision in this case and whether the decision can properly and fairly be described as irrational, I must keep well in mind that it is the panel and not me who had the opportunity to question the witnesses and to make up their own minds what evidence to accept and what evidence to reject. My function is to decide whether the panel in this case erred in law or reached a decision that was unreasonable in some respect. Error of Law

[29]An administrative decision is unlawful under the broad heading of illegality if the panel fails to fulfil a legal duty which would include giving adequate reasons for a decision. Reconsideration as a discretionary remedy

[30]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 Treatment of Allegations

[31]Before leaving my summary of the relevant law and practice engaged in the resolution of this application it is appropriate to consider the approach in law that a panel of the Board must take when deciding whether or not to direct the release of a prisoner on licence, when required to consider relevant allegations made about the prisoner which have not been determined, either by the Board or some other judicial body to be either proved or disproved on the balance of probabilities. The law on this issue, is settled as a result of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pearce

[2023] UKSC 13

. Following that Judgment there was helpful guidance provided by the Parole Board. Because of its importance I set out below a summary of the Supreme Court's conclusions set out in paragraph 87 of the Judgment:

"87: We summarise our conclusions as follows: (i) There is no general legal rule that in making a risk assessment the Board must adopt a two-stage process of making findings of fact on the balance of probabilities and then treating only those matters on which it has made findings of fact as relevant to the assessment of risk. (ii) The Board's task is to address whether the safety of members of the public requires that the prisoner should remain confined. In so doing, the Board must have regard to the consequences of its decision on the interests of the prisoner, and the hardship he may suffer if he no longer needs to be confined in order to protect the public. (iii) There is no rule of substantive fairness, akin to a legitimate expectation, which requires the Board to have regard only to found facts in its assessment of risk. (iv) What procedural fairness requires of the Board in its impartial performance of its statutory remit is determined by the statutory terms of that remit and the wider legal context of the common law. (v) If weight is to be given to an allegation of criminal or other misbehaviour in the risk assessment, the Board should first attempt to investigate the facts to enable it to make findings on the truthfulness of the allegation. If, as may often be the case despite its efforts to obtain the needed information, the Board is not able to make such a finding, it should investigate the facts to make findings as to the surrounding circumstances of the allegation which may or may not point to behaviour by the prisoner which is relevant to the assessment of risk. (vi) In some circumstances, however, the Board may not be able to make findings of fact as to the truth of an allegation either because of an inability to obtain sufficiently reliable evidence or because it would be unfair to expect the prisoner to give an answer to the allegation when he is facing criminal or prison disciplinary proceedings in relation to that allegation. (vii) In such circumstances the Board, having regard to public safety, may take into account the allegation or allegations and give it or them such weight as it considers appropriate in a holistic assessment of all the information before it, where it is concerned that there is a serious possibility that those allegations may be true. But the Board must proceed with considerable caution in this exercise because of the consequences of its decision on the prisoner. Procedural fairness requires the Board to give the prisoner the opportunity to make submissions about how the Board ought to proceed. There may be circumstances where, because of the inadequacy of the information available to the Board, it concludes that it should not take account of an allegation at all. There may also be circumstances where the information is less than would be desired but the allegation causes sufficient concern as to risk that the Board treats it as relevant. Its assessment of the weight to be attached to an allegation is subject to the constraints of public law rationality. (viii) Thus, a failure to make findings of fact where it was reasonably practicable to do so or an irrational reliance on insubstantial allegations could be a ground of a successful public law challenge ."

My Approach

[32]It follows from my summary of the relevant law that the reconsideration mechanism is not a process where I am required to indicate whether or not I would have reached the same or a different conclusion from that reached by the Panel in this case. What lies at the heart of my determination of this application is whether I am satisfied that the conclusions reached by the Panel are justified by all of the evidence they considered and whether those conclusions have been adequately explained. If I were not so satisfied, then it would be open to me to decide that the Panel's conclusions were not within the range of reasonable responses and therefore had resulted in an error of law. The reply on behalf of the Respondent

[33]The Respondent provided representations on 25 February 2026. The grounds for reconsideration

[34]The three grounds upon which a reconsideration is sought are those set out on behalf of the Applicant in their 'Reconsideration application' dated 16 February 2026 which are briefly summarised at the beginning of this decision and which for the sake of convenience are set out here in full: Ground 1: The decision fails to take into account the Respondent's dishonesty in considering his future risk manageability. Ground 2: The decision affords improper weight to the Extremism Risk Guidelines Assessments. Ground 3: The decision irrationally concludes that the entire proposed RMP is not required in order to meet the Codified Public Protection Test .

[35]It is appropriate to set out the specific allegations made against the Respondent that led to his recall which the Panel were required to consider. Allegation 1 - The Respondent ran the " Your Phone " application on multiple occasions to browse the internet or make or receive calls between 12 February 2023 and 17 March 2023. Allegation 2 - On 6 March 2023, the Respondent searched for the term " VOIP phones ". Allegation 3 - The Respondent searched for material which was not for " educational or employment purposes " Allegation 4 - On 17 March 2023, the Respondent deleted the " Your Phone " application Allegation 5 - On 17 March 2023, the Respondent deleted some, or all, of his call history, which included a call from the police. Allegation 6 - The Respondent possessed a kubotan key ring . The Respondent accepted this. Allegation 7 - The Respondent had in his possession books on conspiracy theories and a book about the 9/11 terrorist attack and supplied a book to another prisoner. This allegation was not pursued for lack of evidence.

[36]It was the Respondent's evidence to the Panel that he accepted using his laptop to search for items including martial arts equipment. He accepted that he was the only person allowed to use the laptop and he told the Panel that no-one else did so.

[37]The Panel in its decision then set out what it described as the result of their inquiries into these allegations as follows:

"1.8. On 6 March 2023 an application called Microsoft Your Phone was used to configure an Android phone to the laptop. The only phone which [the Respondent] was authorised to use was a Nokia. The app itself is part of the Microsoft system, and therefore properly on the laptop. However, configuring the phone must have been a deliberate act: it requires the use of the keyboard or a mouse. At the time of the configuration, according to the evidence of the GPS tag [the Respondent] was wearing, he was in his flat where the laptop was. Once configured, the phone was connected with the laptop on 29 occasions until the app was deleted on 17 March 2023. "1.9. The fact of connection on these 29 occasions simply indicates that the Android phone, the laptop and [the Respondent's] wi-fi were all turned on and operative at the same time. It does not indicate that [the Respondent] was making use of the connection. The point is that the evidence establishes, on the balance of probabilities, that [the Respondent] had access to another mobile phone apart from the one which he was authorised to use, the one which the police could and did monitor. The evidence does not show (apart from the missing phone call from the police, which is discussed below) what use [the Respondent] made of the unmonitored phone, which, being a smartphone, was capable of accessing the internet, making and receiving phone calls and sending and receiving texts. "1.10. Also on 6 March 2023, close to the same time as the configuration of the Android phone, the laptop was used to search for VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol), a technology which enables voice calls to be made over the internet: there is no evidence that [the Respondent] made use of this technology, but, of course, no-one knows what use was being made of the Android phone. [The Respondent] told the panel that he may have made this search, though he did not know why. He denied ever using VOIP. The panel is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that [the Respondent] made this search. "1.11. There is no doubt that [the Respondent] used his laptop to make searches beyond what his licence permitted. They included looking on Amazon for pornographic DVDs and martial arts material. None of the searches he made or websites he contacted had any significance to his risk of re-offending in any way similar to his index offence: no other area of risk has been suggested. There was an image entitled "

How do you safely demolish a 28-storey building" on the laptop, but no indication of how it got there, and there was nothing similar found. "1.12. The Your Phone app was deleted at 13:28 hrs on 9 July 2023. Deletion called for deliberate actions. The panel is satisfied on the balance of probabilities, despite his denials, that [the Respondent] did this. He maintains that he was the only person who used the laptop. The GPS evidence shows that he was in his flat when it happened. "1.13 On 9 July 2023 at or about 14:28 hrs [the police officer responsible for managing the Respondent in the community] telephoned [the Respondent] to tell him to come to the police station with his laptop so that it could be examined. That call was not found to be recorded on the Nokia phone when the police later downloaded it. The theoretical possibilities to explain this are:- (1) the data may have been corrupted when the phone was downloaded; this is unlikely, because the experts would expect more corruption if there was any, and a later call was recorded: (2) the call was deleted from the phone; this is unlikely because there would probably be further material evidencing deletion: (3) the SIM card for the Nokia was in another phone when the call was received. Either (2) or (3) would mean that [the Respondent] was in breach of the licence conditions relating to his phone. (3) is the most likely. The panel is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that at the time of the police call [the Respondent] was using the Nokia SIM card in another phone. This conclusion supports, and is supported by, the panel's finding that he had and used another phone. "1.14. [The Respondent] had a kubotan, a weapon, usually described as a defensive weapon, which consists of a marker pen-sized plastic stick attached to a key ring. [The Respondent] accepts that he had this, and had not thought about its possible significance. In context, the panel does not consider it adds to his risk to the public. "1.15. There being no evidence to support the suggestion that at some stage [the Respondent] had unsuitable books in his possession, the Secretary of State (SSJ) has very properly withdrawn it. "1.16. The panel considers that the decision to recall [the Respondent] was justified. [The Respondent's] legal representative accepted this in written submissions after the earlier hearing. "1.17. The Parole Board panel that originally directed [the Respondent's] release analysed [the Respondent's] pathway to offending as relating to transitional changes during late adolescence, underachievement, feelings of apathy and disappointment, difficulties with gaining meaningful employment, the breakdown of his first marriage, emotional fragility, poor resilience, exposure to negative peer influences, exposure to different interpretations of his faith, becoming immersed in online research and watching videos and extremist narratives regarding the conflict in war zones, inability to objectively decipher between facts and propaganda and the need to redress injustice. The current panel agrees with that analysis. "1.18. As early as 2014 the National Offender Service assessment tool indicated [the Respondent] to be a low risk of re-offending, however given the seriousness of the offences, he was assessed as being a high risk of serious harm to the public. It is noteworthy that in February 2019 the Category A board director confirmed his downgrading to Category B by stating that there was "nothing at present to suggest he is currently a high risk and some evidence that he is not". The panel agrees with that assessment."

[38]Having set out its findings of fact, which should remain undisturbed the Panel then turned to their summary of the evidence they had before them. It is important to summarise in some detail the evidence the Panel focused upon. The Psychologists Evidence

[39]It is appropriate to begin by mentioning that the Panel in their decision noted the considerable amount of work done by the Respondent before his release on licence. He had completed the Healthy Identity Intervention (HII), the Islamic Guidance Programme and the Sycamore Tree Programme. He was reported to have distanced himself from other TACT prisoners. He worked with two theologians on Desistance and Disengagement Programmes, up to recall he had completed 34 sessions with a theologian whose report dated May 2023 demonstrated what is described as a very detailed and thorough engagement. He had it is noted 71 sessions with a practical mentor, who helped him find work after release.

[40]The Panel's decision notes that during the Respondent's sentence prior to his release on licence he underwent four ERG (Extremism Risk Guidance Assessments) and was assessed again in 2022 after release to see if he was regarded as ready to move on from Approved Premises. Subsequent assessments were carried out in 2024 and 2025. It is recorded by the Panel that the psychologists' conclusions were that his level of engagement in the type of conduct that led to his offending and imprisonment was low, there was no evidence of intent, and his capability had not changed. The Panel noted that he had been assessed again since recall. Importantly, the Panel adds the following comment:

"Of course, ERG assessments rely to a large extent on self- report, but the panel's experience is that they can be, and are in this case, a valuable and reliable source of information about a prisoner's thinking over time. The psychologists carrying out the assessments consistently found a reduction in [the Respondent's] risk of extremism"

[41]It will not have escaped the Panel's attention, two of them being psychologist members of the Board (the other - the chair - being a judicial member) that between December 2022 and June 2025 there were in all eight ERG's prepared by six different psychologists all of whom supported release . The assessments I have mentioned in May 2024, October 2024 and March 2025 were all supportive of release. The most recent assessment was prepared by 'psychologist B' in October 2025 who gave evidence. Because of its obvious importance it is necessary to set out in full the Panel's summary of her evidence:

"2.1. During his sentence prior to his release on licence [the Respondent] undertook 4 Extremism Risk Guidance (ERG) assessments, and he was assessed again in 2022, after his release, in order to check whether he was ready to move on from Approved Premises (the psychologist concluded that his level of engagement was low, there was no evidence of intent, and his capability had not changed), and has been assessed again since recall. Of course, ERG assessments rely to a large extent on self-report, but the panel's experience is that they can be, and are in this case, a valuable and reliable source of information about a prisoner's thinking over time. The psychologists carrying out the assessments consistently found a reduction in [the Respondent's] risk of extremism. The report in May 2024, by [psychologist A] , contains an excellent summary of the case and recommended release to Approved Premises. In October 2024 and March 2025 she was of the same opinion. The most recent assessment, now in a slightly different format (ERG-R), dated 16 October 2025 and prepared by [psychologist B] , who gave evidence to the panel, describes [the Respondent] as having low engagement in extremism ideology, low intent, low capability, and moderate risk/protection factors - the last because his protective factors remain essentially constant. The factors of coping with life challenges and problems with thinking skills remain partially present, as is illustrated by his breach of licence conditions. The risk, in [psychologist B's] judgement, is not imminent. There is a low likelihood that re-offending would be linked to extremist ideology. [psychologist B] considers that [the Respondent] could be managed in the community. "2.2. In her evidence [psychologist B] maintained the same opinion. "

Many things have changed since the index offence. His identity and duty are now around his family. There is no evidence of extremist ideology. He recognises that he still has issues about injustice [relating to his recall], but he is letting his solicitor deal with that ." When she was asked for a possible explanation for [the Respondent's] continuing denial of use of an unauthorised phone, [psychologist B] said it could be something to do with shame, with having done something that led to him being recalled. " Apart from when he is asked about it there is no evidence of suspiciousness, but he still seems to be willing to work with professionals. He still feels aggrieved, but despite that he continues to engage. I have no concerns about his not engaging. He now knows the full implications of not having his phone monitored ." "2.3. [Psychologist B] discussed [the Respondent's] state of mind at the time of the index offence. " At the time he talked about not knowing who he was and what his duty was. Now he talks more about his role in the family and going to work. His offending was more about a sense of injustice than ideology, though there were elements of both. I think he has the skills to monitor his sense of injustice, though he has not really thought through what he was doing while on licence. I do not think currently he is liable to be influenced by those with extremist views. If something happened to his family and he felt aggrieved with professionals that might lead him to start engaging and talking to people about conspiracy theories and setting people up. It would not be imminent. There is always a risk that he might not be open and honest. There is now a big motivator for being open and honest ." "2.4. [Psychologist B] was asked to consider the possibility of [the Respondent] remaining in custody in order to go to a progressive regime. She said " There is nothing to be gained from a progressive regime, there would just be further evidence of what we have seen since recall. I believe the family are a protective factor. I think he has insight into his index offending. I think the concern is about him understanding the need to comply with all licence conditions ." She repeated that in her view the risk was not imminent, and that she recommended release because she believed his risk could be managed in the community. "2.5. Counsel asked her to consider the position if (as turns out to be the case) the panel concluded that [the Respondent] was using a second phone while on licence. She said " I can't say that he was definitely not talking to other extremists. But I have seen no change in his presentation of moderate views. Another explanation for what he did may be not wanting to disclose friendships and relationships. If he had another phone that would suggest he has been completely untruthful. I took into consideration from the beginning that he probably had a phone. This was a blatant breach of licence, but I was not seeing any evidence of a return to an extremist mindset ." The panel noted that no further criminal charges were bought in relation to breaching Part 4 notification requirements. The COM also reported that there was no evidence or security intelligence suggesting associations with other TACT offenders. "2.6. Before his release on licence [the Respondent] completed the Healthy Identity Intervention (HII), the Islamic Guidance Programme and the Sycamore Tree programme. He told the previous panel that " Daesh/IS doesn't look like I thought it should look like ." He was reported to have distanced himself from other TACT prisoners. He has worked with two theologians on Desistance and Disengagement Programmes, most recently in 34 sessions (up to recall) with [M] , whose report, dated May 2023, demonstrated a very detailed and thorough engagement. He had 71 sessions with a practical mentor, who helped him find work after release. [The Respondent] complained to this mentor that the licence conditions prevented him from looking for work, stakeholders were taking too long to decide that he could be considered for a job". 1-1 Sessions involving including the COM and the Respondent

[42]A different psychologist 'psychologist A' had prepared an ERG Assessment in October 2024. It resulted indirectly in an important development. To explain, a little context will assist. In late 2024 the legal representative of the Respondent made an application to the Board for an adjournment of the review to enable completion of 1 - 1 session work which had been recommended by psychologist A. The work proposed involved the psychologist acting as a facilitator at meetings between the COM and the Respondent the purpose being to identify strategies to repair the rupture in the working relationship between the COM and the Respondent which had been identified by the COM as an obstacle to the progression of the Respondent which in turn had been highlighted by the Applicant's representative in a submission opposing release. The COM (whose evidence before the Panel I shall return to below) had interpreted the Respondent's negative attitude towards his recall, which included denial of the data deletion allegations and to his engagement with the COM as evidence of, in her opinion, " Us and Them " and " Grievance Thinking" raising in the COM's opinion issues of compliance and being open with professionals. Psychologist A in her October 2024 ERG Assessment addressed the views of the Respondent towards those who were involved in his recall, which included of course the COM. Psychologist A indicated that one way of possibly understanding the Respondent's lack of trust was through the application of a non-medical, non-diagnostic framework that she said can be used to help professionals understand an individual's emotional and psychological distress in response to their current circumstances. She noted that on recall the Respondent had lost his family life, his job and his freedom. He had struggled to make sense of why he had been recalled, and he felt that the COM should have defended him more. This led him she believed to think professionals who he felt should have been helping him were against him. He told the psychologist that he did not feel he could be open with his COM/probation as he did not feel supported by them, feeling that deep-down they did not want him in the community. Clearly this proposal for supervised sessions between the Respondent and the COM were potentially of real significance for his future supervision and potential compliance. So it was that the then Panel Chair readily agreed to grant an adjournment of the review; that decision is set out in the dossier and confirms that the Panel's view was that "the outcome of these sessions could well have a bearing on any assessment of manageability of risk".

[43]It is convenient to pause and record by way of a short summary the eventual outcome of the session work as reported in a statement in the dossier by the psychologist who proposed and facilitated them. The three sessions took place between November 2024 and the end of January 2025.

[44]The first session involved both parties airing how they were feeling about their working relationships, how this may present in their presentations, and what the other person sees. The Respondent said that his focus was on moving forward and whilst his recall made him feel upset, disappointed, confused and annoyed, he said there is no evidence he will not work with his COM. He said he felt optimistic but also uneasy about their future working relationship.

[45]The second session built on the goal of what they each wanted their sessions to be. The third session reviewed obstacles to their future relationship and ways to address them. The COM said in evidence that she had seen the Respondent in a different more " positive " way in that he seemed more aware of the reality of his situation and the expectations he had.

[46]On 25 March 2025, psychologist A reported as follows:

"Overall both felt the sessions were a step forwards and provided a better understanding of each other. Open communication was cited as key to ensuring a positive working relationship and [the Respondent] felt the sessions had been a step forwards to leaving things in the past and moving on with his COM in a more positive manner. [The COM] reflected she felt similar to [the Respondent] and she felt they had 'turned a corner' in their working relationship."

The COM and the POM's evidence

[47]The Panel's decision highlighted what it regarded as the important elements of the evidence given in reports and orally to the Panel as follows:

"2.7. Although both the [Prison Offender Manager (POM)] and the COM expressed professional opinions that [the Respondent] should remain in custody, neither of them, in their written or oral evidence, pointed to any evidence that he retained extremist views or terrorist intent. Perfectly properly, the COM said "

The concern was that we did not know what he was doing [on licence]. There was another phone we were not aware of and he was contacting people we did not know about. His risk became unmanageable." She said his conduct in custody has been without fault. " There has been no evidence of extremist ideology. " The static risk assessments are all low, but, as the panel knows, those assessments have little, in reality no, relevance to TACT offenders like [the Respondent] . The COM said that before the index offences there had been warning signs, but now she does not know what the risk is. " I don't know what to look for if things are going wrong. His risk can't be managed because I don't know what the risk is. I am not confident that I would be able to spot the warning signs and know what was going on. I can't know if he was engaging with negative associates. I can't say his risk is manageable. I think his grievance about recall will affect his compliance. "2.8. The POM described [the Respondent] as a bit paranoid, hypervigilant, wary of what has happened in the past, not liking to go into the index offence, which he has done so many times. He shows insight into the index offence, recognising that he was young, subject to peer influences and influenced by what he saw and read which increased his sense of injustice. DDP and Sycamore Tree (programmes ) have made him question things he had been told, and realise the importance of checking what he is told from proper sources. There is an element of mistrust of authority. He still speaks (at the time of the hearing, the POM said) of the Your Phone being a set-up. When the POM told [the Respondent] what his recommendation was going to be, it did not impact their relationship. "2.9. The POM said that [the Respondent's] risk factors were criminal associates, transitional periods, long-term unemployment, spending excessive time on the internet, further feelings of injustice towards his community, isolation, disengaging from probation supervision, and lack of openness. " His risk is not imminent in the sense that an offence was going to happen in a moment, we do not know who he was speaking to or about what. His risk was elevated at the time of recall ." The POM spoke of protective factors: his relationship with his wife, his children and his parents - he is family focused. Some of the skills he has acquired through DDP make him less vulnerable and more prone to question what he is told." "2.10. If released ," said the POM, " Imminence of serious harm would be dynamic. Is he associating with criminals? Is there long-term unemployment, a lack of meaningful activities? The RMP is robust, but only inasmuch as he is compliant with it ." The POM accepted that [the Respondent's] risk had been reduced by DDP and some sessions with the psychologist and the COM. He had completed some courses. " There seems to me to be an element of guardedness about his relationship with his COM. If he feels he is being questioned, he can be guarded." However, said the POM " There are no concerns about ideology. There is no offence-paralleling behaviour in custody. Despite the frustrations he has never disengaged. The risk is not imminent. There would be warning signs. "

[48]The decision then embarked on an analysis of the evidence of the POM and COM but before doing so it is right to draw particular attention to something the COM said " in terms " during her evidence:

"His conduct in custody has been without fault. He has dealt well with the delays in the parole process. There is no evidence of extremist ideology. If released at this stage I do not assess him as posing an imminent risk."

[49]In considering the evidence of these important professional witnesses the Panel noted that the COM's concerns were understandably primarily about the Respondent's lack of openness about his use of an unauthorised mobile and the consequences of that for managing him in the community. The COM is recorded as saying that "The most concerning thing that led to recall was the unknown. I did not know what risk I was managing". She told the Panel that she had spoken with the Respondent's parents and his wife and regarded them as being "definitely supportive, I question protective". The COM expressed her concerns about releasing him back to the family home where what was described as the deterioration took place. As far as to proposed exclusion from Location B was concerned, she is recorded as saying that it was proposed "because there are lots of TACT offenders in [Location B]".

[50]The COM in her evidence summarised her position as follows:

" His risk cannot be managed because I am not comfortable I know what the risk is. I am not confident I would be able to spot the warning signs and know what was going on. I can't know if he is engaging with negative associates. I can't say his risk is manageable. I don't feel comfortable with making an assessment that his risk is manageable at this time. He is saying that if he does not get released he will disengage. To me this is relevant to his risk, because if he disengages how do I know what's going on? I think his grievance about recall will affect his compliance. All this makes management in the community extremely difficult. "

[51]The decision then summarised the outcome of the meetings between the Respondent and the COM under the aegis of the psychologist to which I have already referred. The Panel's decision records it as follows:

"3.4. [The Respondent] and the COM worked together under the aegis of a psychologist to repair their relationship between November 2024 and January 2025 which involved 3 sessions. The psychologist's account of these sessions appears ... in the dossier. [The Respondent] and the COM agreed that openness was the key to their working together. Both felt the sessions were a step forward. As [the Respondent] put it, the sessions had been a step forward to leaving things in the past and moving on with his COM in a more positive manner. The COM felt they had turned a corner in their working relationship. The POM told the psychologist that [the Respondent] does not present with any compliance issues"

. The Panel's Conclusions

[52]The Panel's decision began its conclusions by dealing briefly with the working relationship between the Respondent and the COM in the following terms: "The Panel concludes that [the Respondent] , despite his unhappiness about his recall, understands that he must work with his COM, and has demonstrated that he can and will do so. His risk is therefore manageable in the community".

[53]The decision sets out the remainder of the conclusions reached by the Panel as follows:

"4.1. The SSJ argues that [the Respondent's] failure to admit the breaches of his licence which the panel finds proved, specifically the possession and use of an unauthorised phone, means that he is unlikely to be open and honest if released. It is simply not possible to manage a risk where the extent or specifics of that risk are not known . The SSJ further asserts that [the Respondent] shows a lack of insight into his risk. However, the SSJ does not, in his closing submissions, challenge the evidence that [the Respondent] is no longer motivated by or likely to be influenced towards extremist ideology. Nor do any of the earlier submissions on behalf of the SSJ, to which the current Submissions refer, contain any such challenge. The SSJ does not advance any grounds for the panel to find that [the Respondent] continues to be a risk of carrying out, encouraging or supporting extremist activity. No other potential area of risk has ever been identified. The evidence is that [the Respondent] no longer holds an extremist ideology. "4.2. The panel is satisfied, having considered all the evidence and the arguments advanced by the parties, that [the Respondent] passes the test for release. It considers that there is no more than a minimal risk that, were he no longer confined, he would commit a further offence the commission of which would cause serious harm. The panel is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that [the Respondent] should be confined. "4.3 The panel directs the release of [the Respondent] , subject to the licence conditions set out below. "4.4. The panel has carefully considered the proposed licence conditions. It is not persuaded that a requirement for [the Respondent] to reside in Approved Premises is necessary or proportionate to the risk he poses. His risk is much more likely to be reduced and to be more manageable if he returns as soon as possible to his family, rather than enduring what he, and the panel, see as a pointless period in Approved Premises. Similarly, the arguments advanced for an exclusion zone of [Location B], where his family lives, are unconvincing, and the proposed exclusion zone cannot be regarded as either necessary or proportionate to the risk he presents. "4.5. The panel also carefully considered the proposed [Location A] exclusion zones, which the COM justified on the basis that they cover areas where there are likely to be public gatherings. It seems to the panel that the reality is that they cover parts of [Location A] where there have been terrorist attacks. The panel does consider the [Location A] exclusion zones to be necessary and proportionate. The panel also agree the remainder of the proposed licence conditions."

The Grounds for Reconsideration Ground 1: The decision fails to take into account the Respondent's proven dishonesty in analysing his future risk manageability.

[54]It is submitted on behalf of the Applicant that the finding by the Panel that the Respondent had access to an unauthorised mobile phone which the police could not monitor demonstrated serious dishonesty on his part. This was reinforced by the fact that in his own evidence to the Panel the Respondent denied that he did connect to any other phone because he only had the Nokia. He also denied ever using a VOIP.

[55]The Applicant submitted that the Panel's decision fails to place sufficient weight on this lack of honesty on the Respondent's part which it was submitted is a significant risk factor when considering future manageability on licence. It is submitted in terms that no other panel, acting rationally, could have come to the conclusion that someone capable of such dishonesty could be manageable in the community.

[56]It was further submitted that the Panel focussed too heavily on the fact that there was no evidence of the Respondent continuing to support extremist activity. Further, that the Panel had in its treatment of this issue displayed a lack of proper analysis of the possibility of the use by the Respondent of another unauthorised phone which was not available to be monitored. The Applicant goes further and submits that this ought to have been a significant aspect of the Panel's decision given(a) the nature of the index offence

(b) the fact that the laptop disclosed material relating to the demolition of a building

(d) the fact that he accepted having carried out internet searches for material such as " felony fights " and " bloodiest battles ." The Applicant relied upon the evidence of the prison psychologist who when asked about the Respondent's use of another phone said:

"I can't say that he was definitely not talking to other extremists"

. It is submitted that it was irrational for the Panel to have come to the view that simply because there was no direct evidence of supporting extremist activity, it could not be said that there could not be any such support.

[57]As for the opinions of the POM and COM that the Respondent should remain in custody, it was submitted on the Applicant's behalf that the Panel were disproportionately relying on the fact that neither the POM or the COM were able to point to any evidence of the Respondent retaining any extremist views "without fairly acknowledging the fact that intent, views and interactions with others cannot be proven either way" (Reconsideration application dated 16.2.26 paragraph 14). The suggestion made on behalf of the Applicant was that "[the Respondent] has...behaved in a non-compliant manner on licence and since his return to custody" (paragraph 14). Reliance was also placed on the absence from the Panel's decision of clear examples of risk reduction, "there appearing to be no evidence - other than self-report that his ideology remains stable" (paragraph 14).

[58]The Applicant underlines the Respondent's risk factors noted by the POM which included associating with criminals, spending excessive time on the internet, transitional periods (such as moving location, new work etc) and a lack of openness. It is submitted that the Panel's decision is marked by insufficient analysis particularly of the fact that the Respondent has failed to be open with professionals and that he "may well have been contacting unknown criminal associates on his illicit mobile phone" (paragraph 15). These factors taken together with the fact that if released the Respondent is about to enter a significant transition period, required careful analysis which it is submitted is absent in the Decision.

[59]Significant reliance is placed by the Applicant on the COM's evidence that she said she did not know what risk she would be managing in the community given the Respondent's lack of honesty about his recall. "The Decision fails to properly address the extent to which further work in the closed estate regarding the...Panel's findings will ameliorate his manageability" (paragraph 16). It is submitted that it was suggested to the COM during the evidence that work could be attempted with the Respondent to provide a genuine account about the licence breaches. The COM having agreed that such a step would help with manageability.

[60]In summarising the position taken by the Applicant, it is submitted that it is striking that the evidence of both the COM and the POM regarding their serious concerns about the manageability of the Respondent required but did not receive " a clear forensic evidential basis ". Response

[61]It is submitted on behalf of the Applicant that the Panel were entitled to conclude having examined all of the evidence that the dishonesty they have found does not relate to risk. It does not therefore follow that the Respondent would be unmanageable in the community. This is especially so, it is submitted, when the dishonesty as it was here, is in isolation.

[62]The Applicant's submission that the Panel focused too heavily on the fact that there was no evidence of the Respondent supporting extremism is, submits the Respondent, irrelevant. There was a body of evidence pointing away from any indication when he was in the community or in custody that he indicated any support for or approval of extremist activity despite being back in custody since recall for very nearly three years.

[63]It is submitted that this proposition is supported by: a) The intensive work completed by the Respondent including risk reduction work. b) The fact that the image recovered of the demolition of a building was the only one of its kind - the experts agreeing that if there had been other searches of a similar nature material would have been recovered following examination of the laptop. c) The acceptance that the Respondent bumped into criminal associates while on licence must, it is submitted, be seen in light of the evidence which recorded that he had reported to his COM when on licence that he had seen someone he recognised from Location B in the context only of 'seeing the same old faces'. This evidence it is suggested pointed away from this individual (whoever he was) having any criminal history let alone a history that was extremist in nature. d) In evidence to the Panel the Respondent accepted making searches including " bloodiest battles " but was unsure if he viewed them as a result of other searches for martial arts DVDs. As for the single image of a knife found on the laptop there was it is said no evidence it had been searched for and both experts agreed if it had been such a search many more similar images would have likely been identified. Ground 2: The decision affords improper weight to the Extremism Risk Guidelines Assessments.

[64]The Applicant submits that the Panel placed "improper weight" on the psychological risk assessment which it is said relies almost entirely on self-report. It is further submitted that the Respondent gave accounts that were not consistent with the acts as found by the Panel and so the weight placed on them is characterised as being improper. Response

[65]The submission is made on the Respondent's behalf that the Panel asked the author of the ERG about the possibility of a second phone and in response the psychologist made it quite clear that she had taken the existence of another phone into account at the outset. It is submitted that no improper weight was placed upon these assessments by the Panel; furthermore, what weight was to be placed was entirely a matter for them. Ground 3: The decision irrationally concludes that the entire RMP is not required in order for the Codified Public Protection Test to be met.

[66]The submission in support of this ground is that the conclusions of the Panel that the Approved Premises and exclusion from Location B proposals for inclusion in the RMP were not required in order for the Codified Public Protection Test to be met, were irrational.

[67]It is submitted in effect that the fact that the licence breaches all occurred while the Respondent was living in private property, there remained an increased likelihood of repeated non-compliance if he returned straight back to private property and the COM's concerns about less engagement from his family were simply not addressed in the Panel's decision.

[68]As for not requiring the imposition of an exclusion from Location B, this in the submission of the Applicant, further demonstrated a significant omission from the Panel's analysis in that being in Location B could, as it is put, present the possibility of an alignment with extremist ideology.

[69]Finally, it is necessary to summarise further submissions on behalf of the Applicant that the Codified Public Protection Test has not been satisfied. I paraphrase : If the Respondent has been unable to be open and honest about his recall, he is unlikely to be open and honest if he were released. The Applicant adopts the evidence from the COM that it is simply not possible to manage a risk where the extent or specifics of that risk are unknown. The COM said in evidence "I am not comfortable that I know the risk I am managing. I am not comfortable that I'd be able to spot the warning signs".

[70]It is clear from the Respondent's evidence to the Panel that he maintains a continuing perceived injustice regarding his recall. It is noted that a motivating factor in the commission of his index offending was his belief in the injustice he and his community were experiencing. While it is accepted by the Applicant that there was no evidence placed before the Panel to suggest that the Respondent has what are described as "ongoing ideology concerns" he does, it is submitted, continue to display "attitudes of injustice" towards his recall and professionals working with him. The evidence he gave about police planting evidence (touching on use of telephone/ laptop) in order to get him recalled are it is submitted likely to have a detrimental impact on future openness and compliance. These views were, it is said, echoed by witnesses including the COM.

[71]It is submitted that when the Respondent previously expressed the view that it would be simpler for him to wait until he is released rather than engage in the parole process demonstrates that he still does not have an insight into his risks.

[72]In considering his recall circumstances there is, submits the Applicant, work which can be done in closed conditions on his reactions to the findings of the Panel. Response

[73]It is submitted on behalf of the Applicant that the laptop breaches took place " in private property ". It is also observed on behalf of the Respondent that the laptop was provided to the Respondent by police/probation while he was in a private house and further that he did not have possession of it while in Approved Premises. As for the submissions made regarding the position of the Respondent's family members, it is submitted that they have always cooperated and have never refused to engage when asked.

[74]Regarding the Location B exclusion zone. It is submitted that despite there being a large number of TACT offenders in this area there were no issues raised in this respect while the Respondent was in the community on licence prior to recall. It is submitted that to exclude him from the area where his family live could increase any feelings of isolation and thereby increase his risk. The Panel were, it is suggested, entitled to reach the conclusion they did in this regard and direct that the exclusion was neither necessary nor proportionate given the location of his close family and in their judgment the potential benefits to the Respondent.

[75]Finally, it is submitted on the Respondent's behalf that(i) he can properly be managed in the community;

(ii) that his last almost three years in custody following his recall has brought home to him the consequences of his conduct;

(iii) that he now has an alternative priority to restore himself with his family and find employment and

(iv) that the Part 4 Notification Requirements together with a large number of licence conditions will be maintained placing him under sufficient surveillance. Further Submissions on behalf of the Applicant on whether the Codified Public Protection Test has been satisfied. Lack of openness and honesty regarding recall

[76]It is submitted that the evidence shows that the Respondent has been untruthful to professionals and to the Panel and therefore he is unlikely to be open and honest if he were to be released. In this the Applicant is in agreement with the COM that it is simply not possible to manage his risk where the extent or specifics of that risk remain unknown. Ongoing concerning attitudes

[77]The Applicant underlines the COM's evidence that the Respondent's lack of honesty makes risk management very difficult and that she said that she is uncomfortable not knowing the risk she is managing. Further, the Applicant relies on the Respondent continuing to display attitudes of injustice towards his recall and professionals working with him. His continuing to suggest that evidence was planted on his phone to get him recalled is likely to have a detrimental impact on his future openness and compliance. Continued lack of insight into risk

[78]During the hearing the Respondent expressed concerns about the licence conditions proposed. He also said it would be simpler to await release rather than engage. This demonstrates it is submitted that he does not have full insight into his risks. Which if released will present significant challenges. Conclusions

[79]It is submitted that there is outstanding work to be done in closed on the Respondent's reaction to the findings of the Panel, considering his recall circumstances with a view to working on his openness and honesty. For these reasons it is submitted that the statutory release test has not been met. Response

[80]In the submissions of the Respondent in response it is noted that no course nor programme can be identified for the Respondent to participate in. Regarding the COM's suggestion that a period in a progressive regime may assist, it is submitted that the clear evidence of the prison psychologist was, in effect, that not much of any benefit could be achieved by the Respondent participating in such a programme, principally because as the psychologist suggested it just shows what has already been seen during his time in prison. The submission on the Respondent's behalf is, in short, that there simply is no further work to be done in closed conditions, and a progressive regime is not necessary.

[81]Finally, the Respondent submits through his solicitors that irrespective of his recall and the Panel's findings in respect of it, he can be managed in the community. It is pointed out that he has now been back in prison for almost three years since his recall and is now well aware of the consequences of any future breaches of his licence conditions. Reliance is placed upon his stated priority to be supportive of his family and to find permanent work. It is submitted that the RMP is robust and capable of managing any perceived risk. Finally, it is noted that, in effect, a further layer of protection of the public rests in the fact that on any release he will be subject to Part 4 Notification Requirements and will inevitably, given the nature of his index offending, be subject to a significant degree of monitoring. Discussion

[82]This is a troubling and serious case. The Respondent was recalled following a significant period spent on licence in the community. The recall followed a police report raising concerns as to the use of the Respondent's laptop (including internet searches) and his telephone and also involved alleged deletion of data following a call from the police. On any view, as I have already mentioned, there was a very considerable body of evidence and material considered by the Panel together with a significant number of helpful and detailed written submissions and other documents prepared by both parties. I should make it clear that on reaching my findings and conclusions I have considered all of the material and all of the submissions placed before me. The absence of a specific reference in this decision to a particular aspect of the evidence or submission must not be taken to indicate that it has been overlooked or not taken into account. I am sure that the hearing Panel's general approach to this case was correct. It was to focus upon the two principle areas of the case calling for examination. First, the circumstances leading to the Respondent's recall and what those circumstances demonstrated about the Respondent's manageability on licence. Secondly, the assessment of the risk posed by the Respondent to the public if he was to be released into the community. It was to these two primary issues that the vast majority of the material, the experts reports and the parties' submissions were addressed.

[83]The issues at the heart of this case can be stated briefly. The Applicant argues that the Respondent's failure to admit the breaches of his licence, with reference in particular to the acquisition and use by him of an unauthorised mobile phone, which breaches were found by the Panel to have been proved, means that, if released back into the community, he is unlikely to be open and honest with the authorities. The position is that the evidence showed that the Respondent was in clear breach of very important conditions of his licence and the Panel accepted that in some respects he could not have given them an honest account. It is the submission on behalf of the Applicant that the conclusions reached by the Panel were irrationally inconsistent with the evidence it heard in particular from his COM and to some extent his POM that it was no longer possible to manage the Respondent's risk in the community where the specifics or the extent of his risk remained unknown.

[84]Against the Applicant's case had to be put a body of evidence from a number of psychologists who were virtually unanimous in supporting release in circumstances where the Applicant in his submissions did not challenge the evidence that the Respondent was no longer motivated by nor likely to be influenced towards extremist ideology. The tension between the psychological evidence and the position of the two professionals responsible for monitoring and supervising the Respondent in prison and in the community had to be resolved by the Panel. On the one hand therefore, there were two professional witnesses telling the Panel that it was in their judgment not possible to work with someone about whom there were no concerns regarding ideology, no offence paralleling behaviour in custody, whose conduct was without fault and whose risk was not imminent. On the other hand, he was someone about whom nothing was known regarding what he was doing while on licence, until those monitoring his laptop noticed very concerning activity warranting his arrest and in due course recall to prison for the last three years.

[85]The application by the Applicant was on three bases concerning three aspects of the Panel's decision. I have of course carefully considered the competing arguments in respect of each ground. I am unable to accept any of the grounds put forward by the Applicant as justifying a reconsideration on the grounds of irrationality. I shall deal with them in turn as follows:

[86]Ground 1 - I do not accept that the Panel failed to take the Respondent's dishonesty before them when considering future risk manageability. This aspect of the case was clearly at the forefront of the evidence the Panel considered, it being the tension to be resolved (as I have described it) as between the views of the COM and the POM and the evidence from the psychologists.

[87]Ground 2 - Neither can I accept the suggestion that " improper weight " has been given to the psychologist's risk assessments. Indeed, the Panel decision specifically notes that it is recognised that Extremism Risk Assessments rely to a large extent on self–report. However, the Panel decision in the very next sentence informs the reader that "the panel's experience is that they [ERG] can be, and are in this case, a valuable and reliable source of information about a prisoner's thinking over time". The decision goes on to confirm that these assessments consistently found a reduction in the Respondent's risk of extremism over the several years of his sentence. In my opinion the Panel gave entirely appropriate weight to these assessments.

[88]Ground 3 - It is submitted by the Applicant that it was irrational for the panel to conclude that the proposed RMP was not required in respect of two aspects namely, whether the Respondent should be housed on release in Approved Premises and whether he should be subject to exclusion from a particular area. The rationality of that decision cannot in my view be seriously doubted, falling as it does well within the principles discussed in the case of DSD (see above) which requires due deference to be given to the expertise of a panel which is able to make its own risk assessment and to evaluate the likely effectiveness of any proposed RMP and which must include whether or not it meets the Codified Public Protection Test.

[89]It follows that the findings and conclusions reached by the Panel were all in my judgment open to them to reach for the reasons I have given. The matters I have addressed in considering the three bases of this application leads to the examination of a wider issue. That is whether in this case the Panel's given reasons for rejecting the evidence of the COM and POM and effectively adopting the recommendations of the psychologists were sufficient. Earlier on in this decision I have addressed the relevant law and set out what I understand to be the principles of public law that apply to the application in this case and to my decision. In particular, it is appropriate and convenient to emphasise what I have said earlier regarding a decision maker's obligation to give reasons and that being "one of the fundamentals of good administration" ( Breen v Amalgamated Engineering Union

[1971] 2 QB 75

). For present purposes it is important that I should keep it well in mind that, as I have previously said, the ways in which a panel fulfils its duty to give reasons will vary, depending upon the facts and circumstances of any particular case. For example, if the panel is going to reject the unanimous evidence of a professional witness, then detailed reasons will be required, especially when a panel is faced with expert evidence that it appears, at least implicitly, to be rejecting (see the case of Wells ).

[90]It does not seem to me appropriate for it to be left to a Reconsideration Member to closely examine a detailed panel decision and select what appear to her or him to have been the reasons why a panel must have reached a particular conclusion. Logically, that which a panel selects to demonstrate support for their views and conclusions must be for them to identify. It must be remembered that it is the panel decision that represents the only reliable publicly available source of a critically important decision. It is for that reason that openness and transparency require a clear evidence-based explanation for the decision a panel has reached.

[91]The decision the panel had to make in this case was I am sure not entirely straightforward. Essentially, the options appear to have been clear. Whether to accept the evidence of the COM and POM that the conduct and responses to that conduct by the Respondent were such as to leave these two professional witnesses unable to support release on the basis that there were too many unanswered questions over his future honesty, co-operation and compliance all of which were highly relevant to future risk. Alternatively, the other option was whether to accept the opinions of the psychologists that for the reasons they provided, the Respondent could properly be released subject to stringent licence conditions and rigorous monitoring.

[92]As a matter of law, it is clear that a panel's reasons need to be set out - the amount of detail of course being dependant on the nature and circumstances of the case - indicating in terms that can be clearly understood why they made the decisions and reached the conclusions they came to. Decision

[93]I have decided that the three grounds in support of the application for a reconsideration in this case cannot be sustained and are therefore refused. However, that does not bring this application to an end. I have after anxious consideration reached the conclusion that the Panel has fallen short of fulfilling their duty to provide sufficient evidence-based reasons for the decision taken to direct release. Therefore, the application for a reconsideration is granted only on the basis that there has been an error of law in that the Panel failed to fulfil its legal duty to give sufficient reasons for its decision. I do so solely for the reasons set out above.

[94]In my judgment it is appropriate that the case should be reconsidered on the papers by the original panel as per Rule 28(9)(a) The Parole Board Rules (as amended). I am in no doubt whatsoever that the panel will approach this matter conscientiously and fairly. Directions

[95]I make the following directions: a) I direct that the decision dated 27 January 2026 be reconsidered on the papers by the original Panel. b) I direct that the findings of fact made by the Panel set out in their decision remain undisturbed. c) I direct that no further submissions from the parties are required. d) I direct that the Panel produce a further and more detailed version of their decision addressing the following questions:

[1]Why did the Panel prefer and adopt the recommendation made by the psychologist in preference to those made by the COM and POM. What evidence supported these reasons?

[2]Was there any other material and information that the panel relied upon in not accepting the recommendations of the COM and the POM and preferring the evidence of the psychologists? What was that material/information and how did it support the Panel's views?

[3]What was the evidence the Panel relied upon to support the conclusion that the Respondent had " demonstrated " that he could and would work with the COM? Explain the reasons for so finding.

[4]What was the evidence the Panel relied upon to support the conclusion that there was 'no more than a minimal risk of the commission by the Respondent of further offences causing serious harm'. Explain the reasons for so finding. HH Michael Topolski KC 23 March 2026