Douglas, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 95 (08 May 2026) [2026] PBRA 95

PBRA
Douglas, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 95 (08 May 2026)
[2026] PBRA 95 · 2026-03-11
[1]This is an application by Douglas (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of a panel of the Parole Board dated the 11 March 2026 making no direction for release following an oral hearing on 18 February 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 1 April 2026.[5]The grounds for seeking a reconsideration are that the decision of the panel was irrational as it misstated the evidence given by the Applicant and may have been irrational as the panel may have taken into account information which it said it did not discuss in reaching its decision. Background[6]On 7 December 2018 when he was 31 years of age the Applicant was sentenced to an extended determinative sentence of 11 years eight months for the offence of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The custodial period was eight years eight months with an extended licence period of three years.[7]In May 2018 the Applicant attacked a former partner in her own home. He grabbed her by the throat so that she choked and then repeatedly stabbed her with a knife. The attack took place when the victim's two children were in the house. The Applicant was charged with attempted murder which was not pursued when he pleaded guilty to an alternative charge of wounding with intent.[8]The Applicant was released on licence on 24 April 2025 and returned to custody on 9 May 2025. He was recalled after he was arrested by the police for driving offences and for strangulation and threats to kill.[9]The brief facts relating to the recall are these. On 6 May a woman with whom the Applicant was in a relationship was in a Volvo car which collided with a parked car. This woman is called Ms T in the decision. The driver of the Volvo who was a man was seen to run away from the collision before the police arrived. Ms T told the police that the driver of the Volvo was the Applicant.[10]The next day the Applicant went round to Ms T's house in the morning. They had been arguing the night before. At the house, according to Ms T's initial statement to the police, the Applicant grabbed her round the throat squeezing it so that she had trouble breathing and threatened to chop her head off.[11]According to Ms T the attack was witnessed by her nine-year-old daughter who was screaming at the Applicant not to hurt her.[12]This initial account given by Ms T was supported by text messages that her daughter sent to a school friend.[13]The Applicant was interviewed by the police and admitted going to Ms T's house but denied that he had been violent to her. He also denied that he was the driver of the Volvo.[14]By the time the matter went to court, Ms T had made a further statement retracting her first statement as to the assault and said that she didn't think it had happened, but she had been confused because of her mental state at the time. She continued to say that the Applicant had been the driver of the Volvo at the time of the crash.[15]As a result of the further statement of Ms T the prosecution was discontinued as it was assessed that the prosecution could not achieve the necessary standard of proof to obtain a criminal conviction.[16]Although it was a condition of his licence to report any developing relationship to his probation officer, the Applicant had not reported his relationship with Ms T which was a sexual one.[17]The Applicant did not contest that the recall was justified. Current parole review[18]This was the first parole review since the Applicant's recall. He was 38 years of age at the time of the hearing.[19]At the hearing on 18 February 2026 the panel heard evidence from the Community Offender Manager (COM) and from the Prison Offender Manager (POM). In the 'any other information' section of the decision the panel said ' At the end of the Oral reach the POM provided information relating to the content of Mr Douglas' PIN list....The panel would like to inform all those present, that the information whilst being concerning, was not taken into consideration whilst it was deliberating, because there was sufficient information presented by the witnesses upon which it was able to reach a decision'.[20]The Applicant's legal representative made representations about the PIN list which is in the dossier at p. 546. The Relevant Law[21]The panel correctly sets out in its decision letter dated 11 March 2026 the test for release. 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)).] Irrationality[24]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.[25]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. "[26]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).[27]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.[28]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.[29]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.[30]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. Reconsideration as a discretionary remedy[31]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 be exercised in a way which is fair to both parties. The reply on behalf of the Secretary of State (The Respondent)[32]The Respondent has made no submissions in response to this application. Discussion[33]The principal complaint of the Applicant is that on three occasions the panel has misreported the evidence. The complaint is based on the Applicant's recollection of what was said at the hearing. I assume that his legal representative had notes of what was said and it would have been helpful if she had been able to refer me to her notes of what was said. While it would be possible for me to listen to the evidence to check what was said, I do not think that it is necessary in this case for reasons which I will set out. I will therefore treat what is said in the application as being correct and that there were errors in what the panel recorded about the evidence. It will then be necessary to consider what difference if any those errors may have made to the decision. Errors of fact will only result in a reconsideration if they are fundamental to the decision.[34]The first matter of complaint concerns para 2.9 of the decision where the panel said in relation to whether the Applicant had been the driver of the car which crashed ' The panel believes the explanation (the Applicant's) lacks credibility contradicts his earlier account and that of the witness, and on balance demonstrates [The Applicant] is unable to accept responsibility and lacks honesty and openness'. The Applicant maintains that he never contradicted an earlier account. On the basis that that is correct, was the panel nevertheless entitled to reject his account and find on the balance of probabilities that the Applicant was the driver.[35]In my judgment Ms T always maintained that the Applicant was the driver even in her retraction statement. The Applicant admitted being in the car. The owner of the damaged car said that there was one other person in the car apart from Ms T and he was the driver who ran off. The fact that the Applicant was on licence provides support for the conclusion that it was he ran from the scene.[36]The Applicant complains that the panel misrepresented his evidence when he was dealing with the visit to Ms T which resulted in the allegation of violence being made. At 2.12 the panel says ' He (the Applicant) concluded walking into her home could be construed as them being in a relationship, he should not have returned to her address, but he had felt bad about ending 'it' the night before. [The Applicant] accepted in the moment he did not use his skills, and he could have walked away'. The Applicant says that he never said he didn't use his skills and that he did use his skills in that he did walk away from the house.[37]Accepting for the purpose of this decision that he didn't say that he hadn't used his skills, in my judgment he clearly hadn't. He should never have gone to the house without an invitation to do so. In any event it cannot have made any difference to the panel's ultimate decision whether the Applicant admitted he had not used his skills or not.[38]At para 2.15 the panel records that the Applicant had said that ' he is aware he has been abusive in the relationship'. The Applicant says that he didn't say that. Assuming without checking that the Applicant is correct about that then it was an unfortunate error to make. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that it was not determinative of decision that the panel has taken.[39]The Applicant further asserts that the panel may have taken into account the PIN list which was supplied after the decision was made. The panel says that it didn't. There is no reason to suppose that that is incorrect even though the Applicant's legal representative did make representations about the contents of it. The panel did not rely on it in reaching its decision and this is not a justified ground for complaint.[40]A significant part of the decision was that the panel made findings of fact contrary to the evidence of the Applicant on the matters that led to his recall. The panel found that the Applicant had put his hand round the throat of Ms T and squeezed and also found that he had been the driver of the car.[41]This was important as the COM in making her recommendation to release had discounted those 'offences' as the prosecution was not proceeded with.[42]The panel were entitled to reach those conclusions, but it did not do so in my judgment in the appropriate way.[43]The panel decision was not as clearly expressed as it could have been. Their written decisions should have recorded the test they applied and the findings of fact which they had made. Finally, the panel should have set out the matters that they have relied on in reaching their conclusions. To an extent the panel do this but it would have assisted if there had been more clarity.[44]While I make those criticisms of the decision in an effort to provide some form of guidance it does not alter my views of the application for reconsideration as a whole. Any mistakes there may have been as to the evidence were not fundamental and would have made no difference to the ultimate decision. Decision[45]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 8 May 2026