Ingram, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 97 (08 May 2026) [2026] PBRA 97
PBRA
Ingram, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 97 (08 May 2026)
[2026] PBRA 97 · 2026-03-26
[1]This is an application by Ingram (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of a panel of the Parole Board dated the 26 March 2026 making no direction for release and no recommendation for open conditions, following an oral hearing on 18 March 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 contents of the dossier. Request for Reconsideration[4]The application for reconsideration is dated 2 April 2026 and was received by the Parole Board on 10 April 2026.[5]The grounds for seeking a reconsideration are set out by the Applicant without the benefit of legal assistance and he does not directly identify the legal basis upon which he seeks reconsideration. He claims that the decision was unjust and unfair as the sentence itself of detention for public protection has led to him spending 17 years in prison. I consider that his grounds are on the basis of irrationality, in that the decision was against the weight of the evidence and that the panel failed properly to assess that evidence. Background[6]The Applicant, who was then aged 19, was sentenced on 1 February 2011 to a sentence of detention for public protection for s18 causing grievous bodily harm with intent. The Applicant together with an older male co-defendant attacked a man, knocking him to the ground where he was repeatedly kicked in the head. The victim sustained a brain injury.[7]The minimum tariff of 30 months, less time served on remand, expired on 31 July 2013. The Applicant was 19 when sentenced, he is now 34. Current parole review[8]The case was referred to the Board on 3 April 2025.[9]The case was considered at an oral hearing by a panel of three members on 18 March 2026. One of the members was a psychologist. The panel heard evidence from the Prison Offender Manager (POM), the Community Offender Manager (COM) and a prison commissioned psychologist. The Applicant had legal representation. The Relevant Law[10]The panel correctly sets out in its decision letter dated 26 March 2026 the test for release and the issues to be addressed in making a recommendation to the Secretary of State (the Respondent) 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)).[13]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 the previous reconsideration application in Barclay [2019] PBRA 6 . Irrationality[14]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.[15]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. "[16]In R (on the application of Wells) -v- Parole Board [2019] EWHC 2710 (Admin) Saini J set out what is 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) .[17]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.[18]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.[19]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.[20]The test to be applied when considering the question of transfer to open conditions is the subject of a well-established line of authorities going back to R (Hill) v Parole Board [2011] EWHC 809 (Admin) and includes R (Rowe) v Parole Board [2013] EWHC 3838 (Admin) , and R (Hutt) v Parole Board [2018] EWHC 1041 (Admin) . The test for transfer to open conditions is different from the test for release on licence and the two decisions must be approached separately and the correct test applied in each case. The panel must identify the factors which have led it to make its decision. The four factors the panel must take into account when applying the test are:(a) the progress of the prisoner in addressing and reducing their risk;(b) the likeliness of the prisoner to comply with conditions of temporary release(c) the likeliness of the prisoner absconding; and(d) the benefit the prisoner is likely to derive from open conditions. Reconsideration as a discretionary remedy[21]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 Respondent[22]The Respondent has made no submissions in relation to this application. Discussion[23]The central issue for the panel was whether the Applicant satisfied the test for release now or whether they should recommend a move to open conditions so that the Applicant could be further tested to ensure that he was safe to be released.[24]The decision to not recommend a move to open conditions is not eligible for reconsideration under rule 28. I cannot therefore consider reconsideration on this aspect of the application and must dismiss it.[25]The Applicant committed a very serious index offence. He was on licence at the time, and had previous convictions for arson, robbery and violence. He committed a further violent offence during this sentence, assaulting a prison officer and receiving a concurrent sentence for this.[26]I have sympathy with the Applicant who was a young man when he received his sentence of detention for public protection. He has served a very long time in custody in excess of his minimum tariff.[27]The Applicant has once been in an open prison in April 2019 but was recalled to closed conditions within a month. A recommendation for progression to open conditions was made in March 2021 which the Respondent did not accept. As the Applicant observes in his application it is difficult for him to prove he is no longer a risk to the public without having a chance in the community.[28]The prison appointed psychologist did not recommend release or progression to open conditions. She considered that there was outstanding core risk reduction work which was of a depth and intensity that could not be delivered in open conditions or the community. The POM and the COM struggled to decide upon their recommendations, with them ultimately recommending open conditions and release respectively.[29]The panel clearly reviewed the evidence provided by the witnesses and carefully analysed it in their decision. They explained that they preferred the emphatic evidence of the psychologist who gave a clear recommendation based on a strong and clear rationale. The psychologist's evidence was that core risk reduction work was necessary which was of a depth and intensity that could not be delivered in open conditions or in the community. A treatment pathway such as a Therapeutic Community and, or a personality disorder unit has been identified as appropriate.[30]The panel considered the recommendations of the POM and the COM, which they considered were based largely upon the length of time that the Applicant was over tariff and that a way should be found to progress him, which they pointed out was not the relevant legal test.[31]The decision letter provides a clearly reasoned explanation of the decision, namely:a. His previous record of violent offending,b. His concerning custodial behaviour, even after the completion of programmes,c. His learning needs and personality traits having an effect on the learning he has undertaken in programmes,d. The expert psychological evidence that core risk work is outstanding,e. His lack of insight into his offending and risk,f. His lack of openness and transparency with those managing him,g. His lack of self-management skills,h. His unpredictability and impulsivity which may mean that there are not warning signs to professionals managing him in the community,i. The overreliance on external controls in the proposed risk management plan; andj. His " high " risks of causing serious harm and of re-offending, with a high risk of violence, and a higher than moderate imminence.[32]The panel plainly reached their own considered decision having regard to all of the evidence they read and heard, both from the witnesses and the Applicant, and set this out in their decision letter. The evidence is dealt with in a comprehensive way and is carefully evaluated. In my judgment it cannot properly be argued that in those circumstances the decision of the panel was irrational. Decision[33]For the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the decision was irrational and accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused. Angharad Davies 08 May 2026