Marley, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 94 (01 May 2026) [2026] PBRA 94

PBRA

Marley, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 94 (01 May 2026)

[2026] PBRA 94 · 2026-03-16

[1]This is an application by Marley (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision dated 16 March 2026 not to direct his release, following an oral hearing. The panel did make a recommendation that he transferred back to open conditions.

[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

[3]I have considered the application on the papers. These are the application itself, the decision, and the dossier (totalling 524 pages). Request for Reconsideration

[4]The application for reconsideration is dated 25 March 2026.

[5]The application for reconsideration is based on alleged irrationality. I address the specifics below. Background

[6]The Applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced on 10 August 2009 to a life sentence with a minimum tariff of 17 years. He was 29 years old at the time of sentence. He had strangled his then partner to death before turning himself in to a police station. Prior to the index conviction he had a limited record.

[7]The Applicant was transferred to open conditions in February 2024. He remained there until January 2025 when he was returned to closed conditions. He had been misusing drugs, had tampered with a drugs test and was found in possession of urine. Current Parole Review

[8]The referral from PPCS is dated 07 January 2025. The Applicant's case was originally deferred on the papers before being directed to an oral hearing. The oral hearing took place on 11 March 2026.

[9]The case was heard by a 3-member panel, none of whom were specialist members. The panel had considered a dossier of 508 pages, and heard evidence from the Applicant, the Prison Offender Manager (POM), the Community Offender Manager (COM), and a trainee forensic psychologist. The Applicant was represented throughout. The Relevant Law

[10]The panel correctly sets out in its decision the test for release and the issues to be addressed in making a recommendation to the Secretary of State for a progressive move to open conditions. Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)

[11]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)).

[12]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

[13]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.

[14]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. "

[15]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).

[16]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.

[17]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.

[18]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

[19]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)

[20]The Respondent has declined to make representations. Discussion

[21]The application has been submitted in narrative format. It highlights some of the evidence, some of the panel's conclusions, attempts to address some of the panel's concerns and makes submissions on the Applicant's ability to be safely managed.

[22]Whilst the application is not entirely specific about how these issues link into the Applicant's contention that the decision is irrational, I have construed the argument as follows: · Whilst the Applicant had misused substances in open conditions due to stress and anxiety, he had taken every opportunity to address substance misuse since his return to closed conditions and had developed open relationships with professionals. · Substance misuse was not linked to the index offending and not related to risk. Professionals considered it could be managed in the community, and open conditions offered no significant benefit. · The Applicant had good insight into his risks, no outstanding risk reduction work was required, risk was not imminent and there was no abscond risk. · The Applicant would be supported in the community, including 1-1 support from a psychologist. He could be subject to stringent licence conditions. · The Applicant did not accept the panel's conclusions around the level of support he would require in the community. His previous period in open conditions evidenced this. · A period in open conditions would not allow a relationship to develop with a new COM as until he was released, the Applicant would remain with his current COM. It was also disputed that the support available in open conditions was limited and more would be available in the community. This includes Intensive Intervention and Risk Management Service (IIRMS) which would be of significant support and maintained in the longer term. · As a result of these points, the decision was irrational. The Applicant had provided evidence of dealing with challenging situations in closed conditions and was demonstrating appropriate internal controls which would be replicated in the community, particularly in light of the support available to him.

[23]As noted above, the applicable test when considering an application based on irrationality is whether the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable panel, properly directed, could have reached that conclusion. It is not for me to conduct a reassessment of the evidence and substitute my own views.

[24]The core of the Applicant's case is effectively a rehashing of points that were made to the original panel, and which were clearly considered. The application also fails to directly address the panel's core conclusions: · The Applicant had resorted to maladaptive coping mechanisms when placed in challenging circumstances in open conditions. · He still had tendencies to be anxious and possessive in relationships, as evidenced in his relationship with his daughter. · He had not been sufficiently tested in open conditions and there still existed concerns about his ability to cope in the community (based on his evidence about his time in open conditions) and fill his time in a pro-social manner. · Whilst he has evidenced progress since his return to closed conditions, this progress had not been tested in less restrictive circumstances. · The panel concluded that the drug misuse which had resulted in the return to closed conditions was not an isolated situational issue, but demonstrated poor decision-making, a lack of openness with professionals and deceitful premeditated behaviour. · Stability and further testing in open conditions was required.

[25]I am satisfied the panel's conclusions were sound and based on the evidence available to it. When in less restrictive conditions the applicant had struggled and resorted to substance misuse. He did not seek professional support and took premeditated steps to hide his substance misuse. Whilst he had made progress in closed conditions, this is a very different environment to the community. It was perfectly rational for the panel to conclude further testing was necessary and that evidence of functioning internal controls was limited at this time.

[26]Considering the panel's conclusions in light of the Applicant's submissions, it is evident that the Applicant is fundamentally challenging the weight given to certain aspects of the evidence, particularly around the weight given to the professional witnesses. This is classically a task for the original panel who heard the oral evidence from the witnesses and should only be interfered with if some other error has crept into that panel's decision-making process. Disagreement with the panel's conclusions does not evidence error. Equally, as noted above, it is open to the panel to disagree with the professional opinions. In this case, the panel has clearly outlined the reasons for reaching different conclusions.

[27]Noting the foregoing conclusions, there was nothing in the Applicant's submissions which came close to meeting the bar of irrationality, either individually, in combination with each other, or in their entirety. 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 Marley 01 May 2026