Hodgson, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 88 (28 April 2026) [2026] PBRA 88

PBRA
Hodgson, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 88 (28 April 2026)
[2026] PBRA 88 · 2026-03-09
[1]This is an application by Hodgson (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of a review panel dated the 09 March 2026 not to direct release. (the Decision).[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 consist of the dossier, now some 447 pages, originally as before the panel 442, the Decision, the application for reconsideration prepared on the Applicant's behalf by his legal representative and dated 24 March 2026 (the Application), and a letter dated 13 April 2026 (the Representations) made on behalf of the respondent Secretary of State (the Respondent). Request for Reconsideration[4]The grounds for seeking a reconsideration are, with respect, overlapping and a little muddled in places, but mainly and essentially are based on a submission that the Decision was irrational for the following briefly summarised reasons as I understood them:a. Firstly, in suggesting that that there was, any reservations that there was an imminent risk presented by the Applicant.b. Secondly, failing to give sufficient weight to the Applicant's full commitment to complying with licence conditions as supported by an email from the Applicant's Community Offender Manager (COM) sent on 23 March 2026 (after the Decision) to the Applicant's legal representatives.c. Thirdly, the Applicant's appreciation of the condition requiring disclosure of relationships which, it was suggested, meant that there could have been no escalation of risk without professional awareness.d. Fourthly, the panel's concerns about the Applicant's lack of understanding and of his triggers in respect of domestic violence (DV) was incorrect in that the Applicant outlined in his evidence the need for communication and that he could not control other people.e. Fifth, failing to pay sufficient regard to the prison psychologist's evidence that he had engaged well in his 1:1 work, was able to show insight into relational patterns, and had addressed previously identified treatment needs.f. Sixth, stating that core risk reduction work remained outstanding but failing to identify how that core risk reduction work could be addressed, whereas the professionals' evidence was that no such work was required in closed or open conditions and that on release any work required could be completed within the Resettlement program in accordance with the Risk Management Plan (RMP), as to which the panel was wrong to state that the Applicant had indicated he only required support in respect of accommodation and had engaged with the Resettlement Team.g. Seventh, referring to the index offence (which occurred when the Applicant was aged 17) as having any similarities in respect of domestic abuse committed within well established relationships.h. Eighth, failing to recognise the Applicant's insight into his abusive behaviours and awareness of the triggers to relationship difficulties and his commitment to the Resettlement programme.i. Ninth, failing to give sufficient weight to the views of the prison psychologist, the COM, and a Resettle sociotherapist as to the Applicant's engagement with and commitment to the Resettle program.j. Tenth, the panel made a number of factual errors (specifically identified as five errors in the Application).k. Eleventh, failing to attach appropriate weight to the evidence both generally and (such seems to be the submission) specifically as regards the Applicant's progress in custody.[5]The Decision also appears to be challenged on the basis of an error of law, but this was to the effect that the Decision was wrong because " the evidence before the panel [was that] there was no more than a minimal risk ". Background[6]The Applicant was born in July 1977 and is now aged 48. He was sentenced in 1997 when aged 20 to detention at Her Majesty's Pleasure with a tariff of 14 years for a murder committed in 1997 (the index offence). He was first released on licence in 2013, after a Parole Board hearing, but recalled in 2019. He was again released on licence in November 2020, again after a Parole Board hearing, but again recalled in February 2022. This is his second review since that latest recall.[7]The Applicant even by the time of the index offence had accumulated a long history of offences including property damage, offences involving knives, and affray. He also had a history of consuming and dealing in drugs. The index offence involved a dispute with another man at a night club after the Applicant had been drinking and taking and dealing in drugs and had armed himself with a knife. The dispute escalated and a third person sought to intervene but was stabbed repeatedly by the Applicant resulting in his death and the subsequent conviction for murder.[8]The first recall followed a number of allegations of and concerns around the Applicant's relationships including the use of domestic abuse and DV in different relationships (but which did not result in any charges).[9]The second recall (which a previous panel sitting in 2024 found appropriate) also involved allegations of DV and controlling and coercive behaviour. Again, no charges resulted. Current parole review[10]The panel hearing in this case was an oral hearing which took place on the 4 March 2026 before a three-member panel of independent members of the Parole Board, with the Decision being delivered on 9 March. The panel heard evidence from the Applicant's Prison Offender Manager (POM), the COM (or strictly speaking a briefed representative due to non-availability), the prison psychologist and the Psychotherapist from Resettle plus, of course, the Applicant who was legally represented throughout. The Respondent was not represented.[11]Long identified risk factors were noted and accepted: attitudes supportive of, and of the use of violence, poor anger management, impulsivity, poor consequential thinking skills, criminal lifestyle and associates, alcohol and drug misuse, lack of ability to resolve difficulties in relationships in a pro-social manner without abuse. The panel note the Applicant had been abusive in at least four relationships and he himself identified an undisclosed fifth. Whilst he denied any violent or sexual abuse he himself told the panel he was mentally and verbally abusive and was " not a nice person ".[12]As regards the second recall (above), the panel noted that the Applicant denied any offending against his partner or otherwise sought to minimise his behaviour but the panel found that there was both physical and psychological harm caused which was part of a long pattern of domestic abuse in relationships and noted that the " risk factors that underpin such behaviour, particularly issues around control and resorting to violence when challenged, are similar to those that lay behind the index offence ", the common factor being a need for control, a similar trigger to the index offence (see ground 7 of the grounds of appeal summarised above).[13]At the time of the previous 2024 panel, it had been noted that core risk reduction work remained outstanding around emotional/anger management and also attachment, relationship styles and intimacy. The Applicant was assessed as not suitable for Kaizen so bespoke 1:1 work was put in place and completed in May 2025. The reports, the panel properly and rightly noted, were largely positive. The Applicant was said to have engaged well and able to show insight into his relational patterns. That said, the panel remained concerned about a number of inter-related matters: his failure to address issues around control or his violent response when challenged, his lack of insight into the emotional abuse elements of DV, his superficial understanding of the triggers for his behaviour, his continued denial of any violence in relationships (see above, grounds 4, 5 and 8).[14]The panel also noted and accepted the assessed risks as including a high risk of harm to children and known adults, a medium risk of intimate partner violence (but which would return to high if he were to form a relationship, or if a relationship led to pregnancy, cohabitation or an issue around access to children with a moderate imminence but chronic frequency and moderate to high severity (ground 1).[15]Whilst the Resettlement programme (included in the RMP) aimed at working on consolidating relationship skills particularly in the area of thoughts, attitudes and behaviours, the panel noted a number of warning signs including new relationships, pregnancy, cohabitation, multiple partners which depended on disclosure by the Applicant which, despite the Applicant's assertion to the contrary, the panel found he had in the past not always done. Even the Applicant's own contrary assertion was qualified: he accepted that whilst he may have always disclosed relationships, he was not honest with professionals about what was happening in those relationships (see ground 3 above).[16]As the panel noted, a key part of the proposed RMP on release was the Applicants continued involvement with the Resettlement programme as well as referral to the Drug and Alcohol Team (DAT), the wellbeing service and could complete the Skills for Relationships Toolkit and/or Building Choices. Both the psychologist and the resettlement witness indicated to the panel (as was noted) that the Applicant was pro-treatment and had sought support in respect of relationships. However, what plainly weighed with the panel was the Applicant's own evidence that he did not need help beyond assistance with accommodation which the panel viewed, together with his lack of insight into the requirements of and available support with the Resettlement programme, as indicating a lack of commitment to it. At best this was summarised by the panel as " mixed messages " from the Applicant (see grounds 2, 6, 8 and 9 above and ground 10 dealt with below).[17]Whilst the psychologist, POM and COM all recommended release the panel was not convinced. It noted his progress in addressing and reducing his risk of general violence but that had been replaced by a pattern of violence within relationships. He had made progress in completing the 1:1 therapy. But this work did not usually cover issues highly relevant to domestic abuse perpetrators such as power and control dynamics. The Applicant's lack of insight about domestic abuse and lack of understanding about the triggers to unhealthy situations were thus of relevance. He continued to present a moderate to high risk of further intimate partner violence with a moderate imminence and a moderate to high severity (see grounds 1, 4-9).[18]Despite the positive factors, despite the recommendation by the professionals (which the panel expressly noted it would not go against lightly), and despite the robust RMP including the proposed stringent and restrictive licence conditions, the panel was, clearly in light of the concerns abovementioned and the expressed concern of " the probation witnesses " that " it was difficult to say they would catch any escalation before harm was caused ", not satisfied as to the Applicant's commitment to the RMP nor that the RMP was likely to be effective in light of the finding that the Applicant was yet to develop the necessary understanding and internal controls to be able to manage his risks particularly in relationships. Thus, the panel was not satisfied that there was no more than a minimal risk and hence release would not be directed nor would a transfer to open conditions be recommended.[19]Subsequent to the Decision the Application refers to two emails received by the Applicant's legal representatives are both to some extent apparently intended to address the issue that the RMP might not catch any escalation before harm was caused.[20]The first, dated 16 March 2026 from the POM indicated that the Applicant's disengagement from the Resettlement programme would be sufficient warning and (seemingly) simply restating that the Applicant could complete consolidation work in the Resettlement programme or with his COM. The second, from the COM, dated 23 March 2026 (confirmed by the Respondent in the Representations (above)) again simply repeats what appears to have been the evidence before the panel that work regarding domestic abuse could be completed in the community and underlining the robustness of the RMP. The Relevant Law[21]The panel correctly sets out in the Decision the test for release and the issues to be addressed. Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)[22]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)).[23]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)). As noted above, this is an eligible case.[24]A decision to recommend or not to recommend a move to open conditions is not eligible for reconsideration under rule 28. This has been confirmed by the decision on a previous reconsideration application in Barclay [2019] PBRA 6 . Irrationality[25]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.[26]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. "[27]In R(on the application of Wells) -v- Parole Board [2019] EWHC 2710 (Admin) set out what the judge (Saini J) 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) .[28]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.[29]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.[30]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[31]Since error if law is also relied on (see above) I summarise the relevant principles as follows: 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.[32]The task in evaluating whether a decision is illegal is essentially one of construing the content and scope of the instrument conferring the duty or power upon the panel. The instrument will normally be the Parole Board Rules, but it may also be an enunciated policy, or some other common law power. Other - Factual Errors[33]It is possible to argue that mistakes in findings of fact made by a decision maker result in the final decision being irrational, but the mistake of fact must be fundamental. The case of E v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] QB 1044 sets out the preconditions for such a conclusion:
" there must have been a mistake as to an existing fact, including a mistake as to the availability of evidence on a particular matter; the fact or evidence must have been "established", in the sense that it was uncontentious and objectively verifiable; the appellant (or his advisors) must not have been responsible for the mistake; and the mistake must have played a material (though not necessarily decisive) part in the tribunal's reasoning."
See also R (Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2003] AC 295 , which said that in order to establish that there was a demonstrable mistake of fact in the decision of the panel, an Applicant will have to provide " objectively verifiable evidence " of what is asserted to be the true picture.[34]It is also worth remembering the dicta in Oyston [2000] PLR 45 , where, at paragraph 47 Lord Bingham said:
" It seems to me generally desirable that the Board should identify in broad terms the matters judged by the Board as pointing towards and against a continuing risk of offending and the Board's reasons for striking the balance that it does. Needless to say, the letter should summarise the considerations which have in fact led to the final decision. It would be wrong to prescribe any standard form of Decision Letter, and it would be wrong to require elaborate or impeccable standards of draftsmanship. "
Reconsideration as a discretionary remedy[35]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 considered the particular circumstances of the case, the potential for a different decision to be reached by a new panel, and any delay caused by a grant of reconsideration. That discretion must of course be exercised in a way which is fair to both parties. The reply on behalf of the Secretary of State[36]I have already summarised the Representations (above). Beyond confirming the email of 23 March post the Decision, the Respondent makes no further submissions. Discussion[37]Standing back and looking at matters in the round, in my judgment this application is in substance nothing more than an attempt to re-argue the case before the panel but attaching the label " irrational " to those conclusions or findings with which the Applicant disagreed.[38]Bearing in mind the principles outlined above, the facts, evidence and weight to be placed on that evidence and on which parts, and on whose evidence was to be accepted or rejected were and are matters for the judgment and expertise of the panel. It must also be remembered it was the panel who saw, heard and evaluated the witness and the evidence, written as well as oral before them.[39]The Decision in this case was, in my judgment, well-constructed and well-reasoned. None of the conclusions and findings either individually or taken as a whole strike me as either incorrect, irrational or, where challenged as errors of fact (see below), seem to be fundamental or sufficiently material to the overall conclusion. On the contrary, whilst bearing also in mind the overall length of time the Applicant has been in custody (itself, quite apart from anything else, a reason for anxious scrutiny), the conclusion in my judgment was perfectional rational and reasonable on the evidence outlined. The thrust of the complaint is nothing more nor less than the panel was wrong to reject the evidence and conclusions of the professionals and the Applicant.[40]With that preliminary, I therefore turn to the specific grounds summarised above on which the Application is based and with which I can deal comparatively briefly.[41]Ground 1 : the panel concluded and found that the Applicant continued to present with moderate to high likelihood of further intimate partner violence, with a moderate imminence and a moderate to high severity (see above, para 17). It is true that none of the allegations of domestic violence had resulted in criminal proceedings (as noted by the panel: above, paras. 8-9). The panel also noted evidence of a previous Non-Molestation Order, and a Domestic Violence Protection Notice (DVPN) the latter denied by the Applicant (ground 10 but referred to in the dossier on 5 occasions including in a previous panel decision which also noted police records of allegations of domestic violence). There was thus from these and the noted patterns of domestic abuse more than sufficient evidence to justify the panel's assessment of current risk.[42]Ground 2 : as outlined above, it was for the panel to decide which evidence and what weight to give the evidence were matters for the panel. They were clearly not convinced from that evidence and the Applicant's " mixed messages " as to his commitment to the RMP including the Resettlement programme and licence conditions (above, paras 16-17).[43]Ground 3 : The Applicant himself accepted that (on his evidence) even though he had disclosed relationships (not fully accepted by the panel), he had not always been honest about what was happening in those relationships (above, para 15).[44]Ground 4 : The panel were fully entitled on the totality of the evidence before them not to accept that Applicant's evidence (above, para 17).[45]Ground 5 : The psychologist's evidence was duly noted, but again, having seen and heard the Applicant in the context of the totality of the evidence what weight was to be placed on it as against that totality was a matter for the panel (above, para 13).[46]Ground 6 : As to this, see paras 13 to 18 above. This ground is without any basis. The panel's Decision far from being "i rrational " was entirely rational and reasonable.[47]Ground 7 : see above, paras 11-12.[48]Grounds 8-9 : as foreshadowed above, the panel were plainly unconvinced by the Applicant's evidence in respect of his alleged insight into domestic abuse, triggers, and commitment.[49]Ground 10 : As to the alleged factual errors, there were five in all: the Applicant never been subject to a DVPN, there had been no adjudications for fighting (mentioned in the Decision as having been in September 2022), no convictions for DV (not suggested in the Decision - in fact the contrary noted), and disputing the circumstances giving rise to a return from open to closed conditions in or before 2013.I have already dealt with the issue of the DVPN, the others are, with one exception, relatively minor matters in the scheme of things and not overall either collectively or individually so fundamental or material in my judgment to the ultimate Decision as to have made any difference to the overall result being largely historical or otherwise not inconsistent with other evidence.[50]I should however add in relation to the fifth of these alleged factual errors that the Applicant (according to the Application) does not accept that he only wanted to use Resettlement for accommodation (as to which see above, para 16). I was not invited to listen to the recording of the hearing and in the circumstances given the specific mention of the matter in the Decision as set out at para 16 above I do not conclude or infer that the panel somehow misheard the Applicant tell them that he felt that he did not need help beyond assistance with accommodation. Rather, I am inclined to the view that this is a Post-Decision attempt to suggest that he would now like to proceed (as is indeed the case elsewhere in the application) to emphasise his commitment to the Resettlement programme. As previously mentioned, at best this all comes across as mixed messages from the Applicant implying that even if the panel did mishear him, having seen and heard him in the context of the evidence as a whole his present assertion as to there having been an error in the reporting of his evidence is not, in my judgment, so material or fundamental as to affect the outcome. Other factors, such as lack of insight into the requirements and available support within Resettlement also support the panel's conclusion that his commitment to the program was brought into question.[51]Ground 11 : There is nothing in this point. The panel addressed (correctly) the issues of assessment of risk and the Applicant's progress since the index offence (see, for example, above, paras 10-18).[52]As to the submission that there was (so-called) an error of law in not directing release when the evidence before the panel was that there was no more than a minimal risk is simply and plainly wrong. No error of law falling within the above principles applies here.[53]Overall, as indicated, this was, in my judgment, essentially an attempt to reargue the case on a number of points justified by attaching the label of irrationality to them. Whether the grounds upon which the case for reconsideration is argued are taken individually or as a whole, or whether one stands back and looks at the Decision as a whole in the round, there was nothing irrational in the conclusion reached by the panel which was more than justified on the evidence before them. Decision[54]For the reasons set out above, I therefore refuse the application for reconsideration HH Roger Kaye KC 28 April 2026