Artis, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 74 (08 April 2026) [2026] PBRA 74

PBRA
Artis, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 74 (08 April 2026)
[2026] PBRA 74 · 2026-02-19
[1]This is an application by Artis (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of a panel of the Parole Board dated the 19 February 2026 not to direct release following an oral hearing on 28 January 2026.[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 application for reconsideration, the decision and the dossier. Request for Reconsideration[4]The application for reconsideration is dated 24 February 2026.[5]The grounds for seeking a reconsideration are that the decision of the panel was irrational in light of the evidence which was given at the hearing which was all in support of release. Background[6]On 12 October 2018 the Applicant was sentenced to an extended determinate sentence of 12 years imprisonment for an offence of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The custodial period was eight years with four years extended licence. The Applicant caused serious injury to his partner by hitting her a number of times with a baseball bat. At the time of this offence the Applicant was on licence for an almost identical offence when he had stuck a previous partner with a baseball bat. Current parole review[7]The Applicant was 32 years of age at the time of the hearing. The panel heard evidence at the hearing from the Applicant; the Community Offender Manager; the Prison Offender Manager and from a psychologist instructed by the prison. The Relevant Law[8]The panel correctly sets out in its decision dated 19 February 2026 the test for release. Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)[9]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)).[10]Rule 28(2) of the Parole Board Rules provides the sentence types which are eligible for reconsideration. These are indeterminate sentences (rule 28(2)(a)), extended sentences (rule 28(2)(b)), certain types of determinate sentence subject to initial release by the Parole Board (rule 28(2)(c)) and serious terrorism sentences (rule 28(2)(d)). Irrationality[11]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.[12]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. "[13]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).[14]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.[15]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. That is important in this case as I have been invited to listen to the evidence that was given by the Applicant to the panel. I have not done so. While it may be appropriate when considering an application for reconsideration to listen to evidence, for example where it is suggested that the panel has inaccurately recorded evidence which was given, it is not appropriate in this case. It is the panel's impression of the evidence given by the Applicant and what conclusions it drew that is important not my impressions of it. Also, it is quite different to see a witness give evidence, even on a video link, to listening to a recording. It is not suggested that the panel have misrepresented the evidence they heard in their decision.[16]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. That becomes even more important when all the professional witnesses are supporting release and the panel decides not to direct release.[17]In Oyston [2000] PLR 45 , at paragraph 47 Lord Bingham said:
" It seems to me generally desirable that the Board should identify in broad terms the matters judged by the Board as pointing towards and against a continuing risk of offending and the Board's reasons for striking the balance that it does. Needless to say, the letter should summarise the considerations which have in fact led to the final decision. It would be wrong to prescribe any standard form of Decision Letter and it would be wrong to require elaborate or impeccable standards of draftsmanship. "
The reply on behalf of the Secretary of State (the Respondent)[18]The Respondent has made no submissions in response to this application. Discussion[19]I have sympathy for the Applicant. He has done everything required of him while in prison and he has earned the support of the professionals in his case. In the end though it is for the panel to decide whether they are satisfied that the test for release is met. I have considered the reasons that they gave for refusal.[20]The panel was entitled to take into account that the Applicant had committed the same very serious offence twice in similar circumstances and the second time while on licence from the sentence for the first offence.[21]It is unfortunate from the Applicant's point of view that the primary reason for refusal was that the panel concluded that the Applicant was undertreated. The panel considered that a high intensity KAIZEN (a programme for domestic violence offending) would have been appropriate treatment, but that programme has been discontinued and was not therefore available. It was for the prison authorities to find a suitable alternative. The panel did not consider that the alternative " provided sufficient evidence that his specific intimate partner violence risk factors were adequately addressed". That is not the Applicant's fault, but as a matter of law I do not see any justification for saying that the panel could not have taken what courses he had attended into account.[22]The panel disagreed with the professionals and thought that the Applicant only showed limited insight into his risk factors. While the Applicant points out that the professionals have had more chance to assess him over a longer period of time than the panel, it is for the panel to make up their own mind and not just to accept what the professionals say. Also, it is not for me to substitute my view for that of the panel who had the opportunity to see and assess the witnesses.[23]It is relevant to my decision that there were two psychologists on the panel, and they are experts at assessing risk.[24]I have considered whether the panel have given sufficient reasons for their decision. There is always a duty to give reasons so that the decision can be understood and, in a situation where the panel is disagreeing with the recommendation given by all the professionals, more detailed reasons are often required in order to understand why the decision was made. While it could be argued that the reasons for disagreeing given by this panel could be more detailed, I do consider that the panel adequately explained the reasons for its decision. Decision[25]For the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the decision was irrational and accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused. John Saunders 08 April 2026