Hall, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 70 (20 April 2026) [2026] PBRA 70
PBRA
Hall, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 70 (20 April 2026)
[2026] PBRA 70 · 2026-02-26
[1]This is an application by Hall (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of an oral hearing panel dated 26 February 2026 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 comprising 1064 pages and the application for reconsideration. Request for Reconsideration[4]The application for reconsideration is dated 4 March 2026. It has been drafted by legal representatives and submits that the decision contained an error of law and was irrational. Additional representations drafted by the Applicant himself and dated 21 March 2026 were also submitted and considered.[5]The legal submission is supplemented by written arguments to which reference will be made in the Discussion section below. The Applicant's representations challenge the panel's interpretation of the Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO) and the licence conditions, submit that the risk management plan is robust enough to support release and that the decision is irrational or wrong in principle or in law. Background[6]The Applicant received an indeterminate sentence for public protection on 13 June 2006 for sexual activity with a child under 16. His minimum tariff, following appeal, was set at 30 months and expired on 13 December 2008.[7]The Applicant was 33 years old at the time of sentencing and is now 53 years old. Current parole review[8]The Applicant's case was referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State (the Respondent) in March 2023 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 Respondent whether the Applicant should be transferred to open conditions.[9]The case proceeded to an oral hearing via videoconference on 24 February 2026. The panel consisted of a judicial member, a psychologist member and an independent member. It heard oral evidence from the Applicant, together with his Prison Offender Manager, Community Offender Manager, a prison psychologist and two prisoner instructed psychologists. The Applicant was legally represented throughout the hearing. The Respondent was not represented by an advocate. 10.The panel did not direct the Applicant's release but made 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 dated 26 February 2026 the test for release and the issues to be addressed in making a recommendation to the Respondent 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 rule28. 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) Saini J set out what he described as a more nuanced approach in modern public law which was "to test the decision maker's ultimate conclusion against the evidence before it and to ask whether the conclusion can (with due deference and with regard to the panel's expertise) be safely justified on the basis of that evidence, particularly in a context where anxious scrutiny needs to be applied)". This test was adopted by a Divisional Court in the case of R(on the application of the Secretary of State for Justice) -v- the Parole Board 2022 EWHC 1282 (Admin). 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. 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 20.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. 21.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 22.The Respondent has submitted no representations in response to this application. Discussion 23.The application first submits that the decision contained an error of law. It goes on to submit two claimed errors of law, the conflation of non-compliance with serious harm risk and the failure to distinguish between risk escalation and serious harm threshold. 24.The test for release is correctly set out and there is no evidence that it was not correctly applied by the panel. The panel in a full paragraph (4.6) deals with the question of non-compliance. It is clear from the reasoning that the failure to comply is one of the causal routes to risk of serious harm. Having carefully read the decision I am satisfied that there is no conflation or confusion or error in the consideration of the concepts, the principles or the test. Quite the contrary in that the decision clearly sets out each matter separately that is taken into account. Failure to comply is just one of a number of factors considered by the panel in considering the public protection test. The grounds seek to complain about each factor separately as not clearly stating how each translates into a risk exceeding the statutory threshold. That is not the way in which to read this, or any other decision. The decision has clearly set out the reasoning supporting each of the factors and its conclusion needs to be read as a whole rather than piecemeal picking on each factor separately. However, even if considered separately none of the factors discloses any error of law. 25.Accordingly, this ground cannot succeed. 26.The application submits that " the decision contains an internal tension that renders the refusal to direct release arguably irrational ". It is submitted that the conclusion is not adequately reasoned. The grounds submit that the decision " not to direct [the Applicant's] release appears irrational in light of the evidence before the Board ". 27.I can see no basis for this ground which in reality amounts to a disagreement with the weight the panel attached to issues of compliance and historical patterns and a disagreement with the panel's conclusions in the light of the professional's support for release. 28. The submissions raised by the Applicant regarding the licence conditions and the SHPO disclose no irrationality nor error of law in the panel's reasoning or decisions. The panel in considering the Applicant's conduct on release was not considering a breach of the SHPO but rather the licence conditions. The mother of the child may well have been present on the occasion of the contact but the more concerning fact, noted by the panel, is that he failed to reveal this contact to probation. That failure undermines any claim of compliance with the conditions imposed. There is no error of law or principle in the panel's reasoning.29. The legal representations and the Applicant's submissions point to the professionals supporting release. Panels of the Parole Board are not obliged to adopt the opinions and recommendations of professional witnesses. There would be no need for a hearing if that is all they did. It is their responsibility to make their own risk assessments and to evaluate the likely effectiveness of any risk management plan proposed. They must make up their own minds on the totality of the evidence that they hear, including any evidence from the Applicant. The panel did that and gave reasons for the conclusions reached. 30.Although not specifically submitted as part of the Application, I also find that the reasons given by the panel in supporting its conclusions were clear and thorough and therefore the panel has discharged its procedural obligation to give reasons. Decision 31.For the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the decision was irrational or contained any error of law and accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused. Barbara Mensah 20 April 2026