Davies, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 9 (13 January 2026) [2026] PBRA 9
[1]This is an application by Davies (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of panel of the Parole Board dated the 13 November 2025 making no direction for release following an oral hearing on 7 November 2025.[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 contents of the dossier. Request for Reconsideration[4]The application for reconsideration is dated 3 December 2025.[5]The grounds for seeking a reconsideration are that the decision was irrational in that the decision was against the weight of the evidence and that the panel failed properly to assess the evidence and failed to give adequate weight to the mental health problems suffered by the Applicant. Background[6]The Applicant was sentenced on 22 March 2022 to an extended determinate sentence of seven years imprisonment for a number of offences, the most serious of which was an offence of robbery. The Applicant stole a car belonging to a takeaway delivery driver and used violence against the driver. The custodial period was five years imprisonment with an extended licence of two years. Current parole review[7]The case was referred to the Board on 15 October 2024. The application for release was refused on the papers but on review, following representations from the Applicant, it was adjourned to an oral hearing.[8]The case was considered at an oral hearing by a panel of three members on 7 November 2025. One of the members was a psychiatrist. The panel heard evidence from the Prison Offender Manager; the Community Offender Manager and a prison commissioned psychologist. The Relevant Law[9]The panel correctly sets out in its decision letter dated 13 November 2025 the test for release. Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)[10]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)).[11]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[12]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.[13]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. "[14]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).[15]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.[16]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.[17]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. Reconsideration as a discretionary remedy[18]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 reply on behalf of the Secretary of State (the Respondent)[19]The Respondent has made no submissions in relation to this application. Discussion[20]I am grateful for the very clear and persuasive way in which this application has been made. I have considerable sympathy for the Applicant who does seem to have recently made a real change in his approach to changing his criminal behaviour.[21]All three of the professionals gave evidence supporting the Applicant's release which did help the Applicant build a strong case.[22]As is recognised correctly in the application it is not necessarily irrational for the panel to disagree with the recommendations of all the professionals, but it has required me to look at the decision with great care. It is necessary in those circumstances for the panel to set out clearly why they disagree with the professionals.[23]In my judgment, while the panel set out the evidence of the professionals in the decision, they have also set out why they disagree with it. The panel were entitled to conclude that the improvement in the Applicant's attitude and behaviour has been very recent.[24]The panel were entitled to conclude that the Applicant has had very little offence focussed intervention which combined with some evidence of minimisation by the Applicant is properly a matter for concern.[25]The panel were entitled to conclude by reason of the Applicant's custodial behaviour that they were not convinced that he had sufficient internal controls to prevent breaches of his licence.[26]In the application for reconsideration, it is suggested that the panel have failed to take properly into account the mental health problems of the Applicant. I have found no evidence to support that, and it is to be noted that there was a psychiatrist on the panel who will have specialist experience of dealing with people with mental health problems.[27]Having considered all the matters set out in the application, I do not consider the decision to be irrational and in my view the panel have sufficiently explained how they came to the decision that they did. Decision[28]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 13 January 2026